Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

April 2012

(2012) 25 STR 290 (Tri.-Chennai) — Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Cenvat/Modvat — Documents for availing credit — Tampering of inputs and capital goods received in Unit-1 while credit availed in unit 2 — Invoices altered by themselves — Both units situated in the same premises — Held, credit was justified but the penalty would not be reduced.

Facts:
The appellant was denied input credit and capital goods credit on the grounds that the impugned goods which were consigned to unit-I of the appellant were utilised in unit-II of the appellant located in the same premises. The appellant themselves altered the excise code number on the relevant invoices and also wrote unit-II on the said invoices. The denial was on the grounds of tampering with the duty-paying documents and not on the grounds of non-receipt or non-utilisation of the impugned goods of the factory of the appellant. There was no allegation of non-receipt or nonutilisation of the impugned duty-paid goods.

Held:
The Tribunal observed that since the appellant themselves had made alterations instead of intimating the Department, the reduced penalty was justified. With regards to the CENVAT credit, the assessee was allowed to avail it.
Download PDF

You May Also Like

CENVAT credit — Bills of entry showing address of some other unit but goods received at the factory — Credit cannot be denied even if it was not claimed immediately on receipt of goods and even if the address not mentioned on the bill of entry.

SC tells HCs not to stay corruption probes unnecessarily.