2006 (12) TMI 29 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat Appellant demanded credit under different head Credits were denied by the adjudicating authority due to the inability of appellant to provide any evidence in support of it

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,01,305/-
2. Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 25,766/-
3. Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,328/-
4. Imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,01,305/-
The appellant contended that the credit of Rs. 2,01,305/- was denied as it was in respect of Additional Excise duty, which they utilized for payment of Special Excise Duty. The appellant argued that as per the Central Excise Credit Rules, 2004, the credit of Additional Duty of Excise paid on or after 1-4-2000 can be used for payment of duty leviable under the First or Second Schedule of the Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal found the appellant's utilization of the credit for payment of excise duty to be in accordance with the rules. Therefore, the demand for this credit was deemed unsustainable and set aside.

Issue 2: Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 25,766/-
Regarding the credit of Rs. 25,766/-, the appellant claimed that the credit was denied due to lack of evidence showing that inputs received before 1-4-2000 were used in the manufacture of goods cleared after that date. The appellant provided an invoice dated 6-3-2001 as evidence that the inputs were used in the manufacture of final products cleared after 1-4-2001. However, the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence to support their claim. Consequently, the denial of this credit was upheld.

Issue 3: Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,328/-
The credit of Rs. 5,328/- was denied because the serial numbers on the invoices were handwritten. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, it was held that credits are not admissible when the serial numbers on invoices are handwritten. Therefore, the denial of this credit was upheld.

Imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/-
Considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found that it was not appropriate to impose a penalty on the appellant. Hence, the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.