2024-VIL-1765-CESTAT-AHM-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Cenvat credit, Supplementary invoice, Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Denial of Cenvat Credit availed on the supplementary invoice in respect of the duty paid on the stock transfer invoking Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Whether the prohibition under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules can be invoked to deny Cenvat credit in respect of stock transfers between the appellant's own units, where there is no sale involved - HELD - From the plain reading of the Rule 9(1)(b) it is clear that the restriction for Cenvat Credit provided in the Rule 9(1)(b) is applicable only in such cases where the transaction of input is of sale - The prohibition under Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR, 2004 is applicable only in respect of the transaction of goods for sale. In the present case, the goods were received by the appellant from their own unit through stock transfer and not a sale transaction. Therefore, Rule 9(1)(b) is not applicable and the denial of Cenvat credit on this ground is without authority of law – Tribunal relied on various judgments which have held that the prohibition under Rule 9(1)(b)/Rule 7(1)(b) of the earlier Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable in cases of stock transfers between units of the same manufacturer - Further the duty paid by one factory of the manufacturer is available as Cenvat credit to the other unit of the same manufacturer, and therefore, there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty - the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page