Case Law Details
Commissioner Vs Bonafide Arts Pvt Ltd (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that denial of CENVAT Credit alleging non-receipt of goods based on statements without following procedure prescribed under section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is unjustified and unsustainable in law.
Facts- M/s Bonafide Arts Pvt Ltd., Jaipur is a manufacturer of MS billets falling under Chapter Heading 720 71920 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Based on an investigation report, officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur initiated enquiries from the second stage dealer of Jaipur M/s Shree Mahalaxmi Scrap Trading Company who had supplied scrap to the respondent to ascertain the names of the first stage dealers from whom M/s Shree Mahalaxmi purchased the goods and also the names of the manufacturers whose goods were supplied.
After completing the investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent proposing to recover CENVAT credit of Rs. 89,91,247/- under rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act , 1944. Interest was also proposed to be recovered under rule 14 of CCR read with section 11 AA of the Act. Penalty was proposed to be imposed under rule 15 (2) of CCR read with section 11AC of the Act. The Additional Commissioner passed O-I-O disallowing the CENVAT Credit and ordering its recovery along with interest as proposed in the show cause notice. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), by the impugned order, set aside the O-I-O. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
