Assessee took CENVAT credit on inputs on the basis
of invoices. The Revenue denied the said credit on the grounds that invoices submitted
by assessee were all endorsed invoices but while endorsing, consignee name was
not mentioned in invoices. The Tribunal held that since name of consignee is
not one of the essential requirements specified in proviso to rule 9(2), it is
necessary to examine whether other conditions for allowing CENVAT credit had
been fulfilled or not.
Century Dyeing
& Printing Mills V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat – CESTAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH
No comments:
Post a Comment