2010 (7) TMI 472 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - A Show Cause Notice was issued and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands, imposed penalty and demanded interest - Board s Circular No. 137/48/95-C.X., dated 18-7-95, the following clarification has been issued on this issue as the movement of goods in such cases will take place on the manufacturer s invoice issued under the Rule 52A which will also be treated as a valid duty paying document and no separate invoice under the provisions of Rule 57G is required to be issued in such cases, such persons taking part in transit sale need not get themselves registered - Accordingly decided in the favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of Cenvat credit on Central Excise Duty paid on inputs purchased from registered dealers.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore concerned the eligibility of Cenvat credit of the Central Excise Duty paid on inputs purchased by the Respondent from registered dealers. The Revenue contended that the invoices on which the credit was claimed did not indicate the registered dealer as the purchaser on the manufacturer's duty paying document. A Show Cause Notice was issued, and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands, imposed penalties, and demanded interest. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) referred to Board Circulars and held that the appellants were eligible to avail Cenvat credit based on the documents issued by the registered dealers. The Commissioner also noted that CESTAT had clarified a similar issue in a previous Final Order.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent cited a Division Bench judgment in the assessee's own case and others, where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee on an identical issue. The Tribunal observed that the Excise Invoices prepared by the manufacturer contained the name of the purchaser, while the consignee name was of the registered dealers who issued the invoices. The Revenue did not challenge this factual position. In the absence of evidence showing that the name of the registered dealer was not on the duty paying documents issued by the manufacturer, the impugned order, which relied on Board Circulars, was deemed correct and legal. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the eligibility of the Respondent to avail Cenvat credit based on invoices issued by registered dealers, following the procedures outlined in Board Circulars. The decision was supported by previous Tribunal rulings and the absence of evidence contradicting the presence of the registered dealer's name on the duty paying documents. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and relevant circulars in determining Cenvat credit eligibility in such cases.