At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Allahabad
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ARCHANA WADHWA
By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR
For Respondents: Mohd. Altaf, Asstt. Commr. (AR)
1. After rejecting the request for adjournment we proceed to decide the appeal, inasmuch as a short issue is involved. After hearing the Learned DR and after going through the impugned order, we find that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses and availed the Cenvat credit on capital goods on the basis of the invoices which were endorsed by M/s. Sahyadri Sahakari Sahkkar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur. It is seen that the capital goods were originally received by the said Sahkkar Karkhana in the year 2003 and after a lapse of two years, the same were transferred to the present appellant and the original invoices received by the said Sahkkar Karkhana was endorsed by the Superintendent and Inspector of Central Excise in favour of the present appellant.
2. Revenue's only objection for availment of the credit is that the same has been availed on the basis of endorsed invoices which cannot be held to be valid documents for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit during the relevant period.
3. We find that the M/s. Sahyadri Sahkari Sahkkar Karkhana Ltd., who originally received the capital goods, approached their jurisdictional Superintendent and Inspector for endorsing of the invoices in favour of the present appellant. The said officers endorsed the invoices and on the basis of the same the appellant received the capital goods as also availed the credit. Revenue's stand is that instead of endorsing the invoices M/s. Sahyadri Sahkari Sahkkar Karkhana Ltd. should have issued fresh invoices.
4. First of all we note that the Revenue itself endorsed the invoices at the request of the Sahyadri Sahkari Sahkkar Karkhana Ltd. If they would have objected at that particular point of time, said sender of the capital goods would have issued fresh invoices. Otherwise also we note that there is no dispute about receipt of the capital goods and their duty paid character and only the technical objection is being adopted by the Revenue for denial of the Cenvat credit, which is otherwise available to the appellant. It is well settled law that substantive benefits cannot be denied by raising grounds of technical pro
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
cedural violation, if any. In view of the above we find no merit in the Revenue's stands. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)