Case Law Details
Sahney Commutators Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Bangalore)
CESTAT gone through the discussions and findings given by the Appellate Authority where it is highlighted that the invoices relied upon by the appellant is not reflecting same goods. But there is no dispute that the Bare Copper Strips with description Sample ED-192 if cut out into small pieces during the initial process of manufacture was rejected at very beginning of manufacturing. If so, same cannot be invoice as in the very same description. Though, there is a slight discrepancy in the description in invoices, it is an admitted fact that Copper of 1028.8 Kgs were supplied by suppliers, it was returned for Job work due to defect and on completion of Job work, it is sent back to the appellant for further processing vide Invoice dated 03.02.2017 by charging only the labour charges. Moreover, during investigation there is no discrepancy pointed out regarding the stock of raw material maintained by the appellant and the return submitted for the relevant period shows proper transaction of said material as claimed by the appellant. After considering the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to allege that the appellant had availed ineligible CENVAT credit. Hence, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
The appellant is manufacturing Commutators and Bare Copper Strip/wire of various sizes are the major input for the manufacture final products. Alleging that appellant irregularly availed CENVAT credit of Rs.57,636/-, present proceedings initiated.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
