2011 (10) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - appellant did not have original invoices/endorsed original invoices - Assesse contended that factory has been closed since long time and with great difficulty, they have been able to find out another 4 invoices and requests that the matter may be remanded - Held that since the appellant has been producing invoices in piecemeal, at some stage, the production of invoices should stop - matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority, who shall consider these documents and allow the CENVAT Credit, if it is admissible

Summary

Issues: CENVAT credit denial due to missing original invoices, remand for consideration of specific invoices, limitation on producing further invoices.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the issue revolved around the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.28,127 due to the absence of original invoices or endorsed original invoices. The appellant argued that the factory had been closed for a significant period, and they managed to locate four additional invoices. The appellant requested a remand to assess their claim for CENVAT credit related to these newly found invoices. The tribunal acknowledged the prolonged timeline from the duty period in 2003 to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice in 2006, which had now extended over five years. Despite the incremental submission of invoices by the appellant, the tribunal decided to grant a final opportunity for the original adjudicating authority to review the four specific invoices presented by the appellant. These invoices were from M/s Mamta Textiles, M/s Himson Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd., M/s Pooja Enterprises, and M/s Rangoonwala Fabrics.

Furthermore, the tribunal emphasized that the appellant's submission of invoices in fragments should cease, and the appellant's consultant agreed to this condition. It was decided that no additional invoices would be produced, and the request for CENVAT credit would be limited to the four identified invoices only. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority with instructions to evaluate the documents thoroughly and grant the CENVAT credit if found permissible under the law. The appellants were assured of a fair opportunity to present the required documents for consideration. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Mr. B.S.V. Murthy.