2014 (1) TMI 1783 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - crates and glass bottles - forged invoices - Held that - As the said goods were required by the present respondents, their sister concern sent the same to the present respondents along with the invoice after re-writing their name. There is no dispute that the inputs were received by the respondents and used in the manufacture of the final product - credit allowed - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over availment of CENVAT credit of duty paid on crates and glass bottles due to invoices being originally in the name of a sister unit.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute regarding the availment of CENVAT credit of duty paid on crates and glass bottles. The Revenue had filed two appeals against the order passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), which were being disposed of by a common order as they arose from the same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents, engaged in the manufacture of Aerated Water, had a sister unit named M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd., also involved in the same business.

The core issue revolved around the fact that the invoices for the inputs, originally in the name of M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd., were over-written with the name and address of the present respondents. The Revenue objected to the validity of these invoices for claiming CENVAT credit, arguing that the alteration rendered them improper documents. However, the Tribunal found this objection to be overly technical. It was established that M/s. Amritsar Crown Caps Ltd. had ordered the crates and glass bottles, which were off-loaded at their premises and then sent to the present respondents after re-writing the invoices. The inputs were unquestionably received by the respondents and utilized in the manufacturing process, leading to the conclusion that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were not erroneous.

In light of the factual circumstances and the seamless transfer of goods between the sister concerns, the Tribunal determined that the objections raised by the Revenue lacked merit. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, emphasizing that the invoices, despite the alterations, were valid for the purpose of claiming CENVAT credit. The judgment by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial), upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondents, highlighting the practical substance of the transaction over mere technicalities in documentation.