2004 (2) TMI 529 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in Cenvat credit claimed by the appellant.
2. Validity of supplementary invoices issued under Rule 57AE of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, challenging the recovery of Cenvat credit and imposition of a penalty. The Lower Authority observed that the appellant's unit had paid duty but failed to comply with the 57-E certificate requirement within the stipulated time frame. The Commissioner ordered the recovery of Cenvat credit and imposed a penalty. However, parallel proceedings against a sister concern resulted in a favorable decision, allowing the credit. The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the appellant, setting aside the impugned order based on the favorable decision in the parallel proceedings. The Revenue contended that the supplementary invoices were re-issued under Rule 57AE, but the certificate was rejected due to the recovery of duty for suppression of facts. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the validity of the credit taken by the appellant.

2. The arguments presented by both parties focused on the validity of the supplementary invoices issued under Rule 57AE. The Revenue sought confirmation of the original order, claiming that the Commissioner's findings were limited to one invoice and lacked justification for the remaining demands. The appellant's counsel argued that the duty paid subsequently did not involve suppression of facts, as held by the authorities. Referring to a Board's Circular, the counsel asserted that the supplementary invoices should be accepted. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the impugned order and parallel proceedings, found that the duty paid voluntarily was correctly construed as payment of the differential duty, allowing for the extension of credit. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision and rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the credit was taken in accordance with the rules and no suppression was alleged in the matter.