2010 (6) TMI 392 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit Inputs for Hosiery goods - invoices issued by the consignment agents much prior to 31-3-2003 - appellants claimed the credit in respect of the yarn contained in the finished products as on 1-3-03 and there is no evidence on record that the goods manufactured out of the yarn received in August, October, 2002, were still in the stock - appellant has to file one declaration under Sub-rule (1) claiming the credit in respect of inputs on actual basis showing documents evidencing actual payment of duty and other declaration under sub-rule (2) where the documents are not available with the manufacturer for deemed credit and the declarations are to be filed on or before 15th June, 2003 as provided under sub-rule (4) - declaration under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9A was filed after due date and the appellants failed to produce the necessary documents showing payment of duty Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of credit by the adjudicating authority
- Claim of Cenvat credit on inputs for hosiery goods
- Validity of duty payment documents
- Applicability of Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002
- Timeliness of filing declarations for credit claims
- Reliance on previous Tribunal decisions

Disallowed Credit:
The appellants appealed against the disallowance of credit amounting to Rs. 61,35,312 by the adjudicating authority. The case revolved around the manufacture of hosiery goods and the availability of documents evidencing actual payment of duty on inputs contained in finished products.

Cenvat Credit Claim:
The appellants claimed Cenvat credit under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which allowed credit for duty paid on inputs lying in stock or contained in finished products as of March 31, 2003. The dispute arose from the appellants' failure to produce valid duty paying documents to support their claim.

Validity of Documents:
The appellants argued that invoices issued by consignment agents, along with certificates from manufacturers, served as valid duty payment documents. They contended that these documents demonstrated actual duty payment on inputs, justifying their claim for credit.

Rule 9A Applicability:
Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules provided transitional provisions for Textile Articles, requiring manufacturers to file declarations by June 15, 2003, to claim credit on inputs. The rule differentiated between claiming actual credit with duty payment evidence and deemed credit for lack of such documents.

Timeliness of Declarations:
The appellants initially claimed deemed credit under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9A before the due date and later sought actual credit under sub-rule (1) after the deadline. The Revenue contended that the late filing and lack of duty payment particulars on documents justified the denial of credit.

Reliance on Tribunal Decisions:
The appellants cited Tribunal decisions to support their claim, but the Tribunal found that the circumstances in those cases were not directly applicable to the present matter. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely declarations and valid duty payment evidence for credit claims.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal due to the late filing of the declaration under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9A and the appellants' failure to provide sufficient documents demonstrating duty payment. The decision highlighted the procedural requirements and evidentiary standards necessary for claiming credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules.