2010 (2) TMI 1204 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Disallowance of credit on various grounds including investigation of vendor, absence of invoice copy, non-duty-paid inputs, missing duty paid particulars, lack of input description, importer declaration, RG-23D entry number.

Investigation of Vendor M/s. Clutch Auto:
The Appellant argued that the disallowance of credit based on the vendor being under investigation is not sustainable as the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand while also ordering investigation, making the confirmation unjustifiable. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal order setting aside a similar demand but upholding the verification of document genuineness. The Tribunal found in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the demand and upholding the verification order.

Missing Input Description in Invoice:
Regarding the denial of credit due to the absence of input description in the invoice, the Appellant contended that since part numbers were provided and duty was paid, the credit denial was unwarranted. Citing a previous order where a similar demand was set aside, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, overturning the denial of credit.

Duty Debit Particulars Not Mentioned:
In the case of duty debit particulars not being mentioned in the invoice, the Appellant argued that although the duty value and goods details were included, the vendors debited duty through a consolidated entry. The Tribunal, referring to a prior order, allowed the credit, disagreeing with the denial based on missing duty debit particulars.

Importer Declaration Absence:
Regarding the demand confirmed due to the importer not providing a declaration for credit availing, the Appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in a similar case to support their claim. As the goods were received under a bill of entry with no duty payment dispute, the Tribunal sided with the Appellant, allowing the credit.

RG-23D Entry Missing in Invoices:
The Appellant argued that credit denial based on missing RG-23D entry in invoices from a registered dealer was unjustified as duty payment details were present. The Tribunal found the denial unsustainable, stating that the absence of dealer goods receipt particulars did not warrant credit disallowance.

Penalty Imposition:
Regarding penalties imposed, the Tribunal noted that substantial credit denials were overturned, leading to the penalties being set aside. With no dispute over material receipt under duty documents, the penalties were deemed unjustified, and hence, set aside.

Conclusion:
The Appeals were disposed of with credit denials on various grounds being overturned based on legal arguments and precedents, leading to penalties being set aside due to substantial credit allowances.