Case Law Details
Vedanta Limited Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that duty passed on via supplementary invoice is eligible for cenvat credit as it is not due to reason of any suppression of fact, fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement, etc. and hence not barred by provisions of Rule 57AE of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Facts- In pursuance to an intelligence that M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin has raised supplementary invoices in favour of Appellant i.e. M/s Sterlite, Silvasa (Now known as M/s Vedanta Ltd.) for differential duty paid by them on account of short payment of Central Excise Duty on clearance of ‘Copper Anode’ after issuance of show cause notice for undervaluation of ‘Copper Anode’ and suppression of actual cost of production.
On scrutiny of the invoices produced by the assessee, it was observed by the department that during April, 2001, M/s Sterlite, Silvasa has availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 15,06,93,732/- on the strength of supplementary Invoices issued by M/s. Sterlite, Tuticorin. It was also observed that for short payment of duty proceedings were initiated against the M/s Sterlite, Tuticorin by issuing periodical show cause notices proposing demand of Central Excise Duty.
The said show cause notices were adjudicated and the demand was confirmed under Section 11A(2) of the Act. After the issuance of SCNs and few days before the adjudication order, M/s Sterlite, Tuticorin paid the amount of duty and issued supplementary invoices in favour of the appellant’s unit M/s Sterlite, Silvasa unit (Appellant) who in turn took credit of the duty in their cenvat credit account.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
