2015 (7) TMI 1175 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Rule 9 of the cenvat credit Rules - Held that - Tribunal in the case of Krishna Maruti Limited vs.CCE Delhi reported in 2012 (6) TMI 461 - CESTAT New DELHI has held that cenvat credit is not deniable merely because the invoice contained the address of the corporate office when there is no dispute about the duty-paid character and their receipt in the factory premises and their utilization in the manufacture of the final product by the appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cenvat credit denial based on incomplete invoices.
2. Applicability of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, availed cenvat credit on inputs using 28 invoices lacking consignee address. The investigation objected, leading to adjudication. The Additional Commissioner's order was in favor of the appellant, directing verification of goods receipt. The Central Excise Department appealed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, prompting the present dispute.

2. The Tribunal noted Rule 9's proviso allowed cenvat credit subject to goods receipt verification and accounting. Referring to a precedent, it emphasized credit shouldn't be denied solely due to address discrepancies if duty payment and utilization were established. The Tribunal found the denial unjustified, aligning with the cenvat statute.

3. The absence of specific reference to penalty rules by lower authorities raised concerns. However, the show cause notice proposed penalties under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal, considering no fraudulent intent or evasion, deemed Section 11AC inapplicable for penalty imposition.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized adherence to cenvat credit rules and the absence of fraudulent activities as crucial factors in the judgment.