Bharat Aluminum Co.Ltd vs Cce, Raipur
- CitationAppeal No.E/60263/2013-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the bill of entry is not endorsed in the name of the claimant of CENVAT credit, the credit is not to be denied on that ground alone if the importer has declared to the revenue authorities that the goods covered by the bill of entry were transferred to the claimant, and the invoice has been issued in the claimant's favour for transfer of those goods, since such documents establish the duty-paying character of the goods; where the duty paid on the goods is not disputed, the credit so availed is admissible.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.195/RPR-I/2013 dt.5.8.13 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Raipur)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 11.2.2015
For Approval &signature:
HonbleMr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Bharat Aluminum Co.Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Raipur Respondent
Appearance
Shri Somnath Shukla, Advocate for the appellant
Shri- Devender Singh, AR for the respondent
CORAM: HonbleMr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO.50450/2015
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the credit on capital goods procured by the appellant on the premise that the documents against which they have availed credit are not proper documents for availing credit.
2. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
3. In this case, only allegation against the appellant is that they have taken credit on the strength of bill of entry which is not endorsed in the name of the appellant.
3. On perusal of the records, I find that the importer has filed declaration before the Revenue authorities that the goods entered in the bill of entry have been transferred to the appellant. Moreover, the invoice has been issued in favour of the appellant for transfer of the goods for the appellant. Therefore, I hold that the appellant has correctly taken the credit on the strength of document showing duty paying character of the goods. As the duty paid on the goods has not been disputed, I allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
mk
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free