2010 (9) TMI 951 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that the documents such as Debit Notes, Freight Certificates etc., were not prescribed documents for the purpose of taking credit - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2009 (242) ELT 467 (Tri.-Ahmd.), where it was held that once the details required u/r 9(2) of the CCR, 2004, are shown in the documents such as debit notes on the strength of which the assessees took credit, there was no ground for denial of substantive right to credit - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Extension of credit based on prescribed documents, denial of credit by adjudicating authority, imposition of penalty, Tribunal's decision on Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Extension of Credit Based on Prescribed Documents:
The case involved the extension of credit of Rs.1,16,634 to the assessees, who are manufacturers of Polyester and Viscose Yarn, among other items. The Revenue sought to deny the credit, arguing that documents like Debit Notes and Freight Certificates were not prescribed for taking credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of a portion of the credit but extended the rest, stating that the documents contained all necessary particulars for credit extension. The Tribunal cited the case of Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad, where it was held that if documents contain details required under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there is no ground for denial of credit. The Tribunal found that the documents in this case met the requirements, leading to the decision to uphold the extension of credit.

Denial of Credit and Penalty Imposition:
Initially, the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, which was partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner upheld the denial of a small amount of credit but extended the majority of it, reducing the penalty on the assessees. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It referenced previous Tribunal decisions in the assessee's case, where the issue was remanded to verify if the debit notes contained necessary particulars for credit availment. However, in this instance, since it was admitted that all required details were present in the documents, the Tribunal upheld the extension of credit and reduced the penalty, ultimately rejecting the appeal by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the extension of credit to the assessees and reduced the penalty imposed, based on the documents containing the requisite particulars as per Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The decision was supported by previous Tribunal rulings and the absence of any grounds for remand, as all necessary details were found in the documents. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.