Ce And St Udaipur Commissioner Of ... vs M/S Dcm Shriram Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 1372 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Central/excise Appeal No. 33/2019

Ce And St Udaipur Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service
Tax, 142-B, Hiran Magari, Sector-11, Near Shahi Bagh, Udaipur
(Raj) 313002
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
M/s Dcm Shriram Ltd., Shriram Nagar, Kota (Raj)
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka through VC For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyamvada Joshi through VC

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

08/02/2022

This appeal is filed by the department to challenge the

judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Following substantial question of law is presented for our

consideration:-

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the credit in respect of supplementary invoices issued to recover differential duty paid by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts covered under the exclusion clause of the Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as discussed above?"

We have perused the documents on record and heard

learned counsel for the parties. We notice that as per clause (b) of

Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the basis of

supplementary invoice issued by the manufacturer or importer

would be available to the assessee except where the additional

(2 of 2) [EXCIA-33/2019]

amount of duty becomes recoverable from the manufacturer or

importer on account of non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud

or collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts or

contravention of the provisions of the Excise Act, or of the

Customs Act or Rules made thereunder which intent to evade

payment of duty.

In the present case, the tribunal has come to the factual

finding that there was no case of non-levy or short-levy by reason

of fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of

facts or contravention of the Act or Rules.

That being the position, no question of law arises. The appeal

is dismissed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

N.Gandhi/59

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)