2011 (9) TMI 357 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - date mentioned on the invoice is a clerical mistake - According to Revenue when the appellant did not come forward to comply to the laid down procedure the appellate authority has rightly decided against the appellant - plea of the appellant that there was a clerical mistake does not appeal to commonsense - held that - When the appellant did not come forward to make its claim adducing proper evidence failure to follow the prescribed procedure disentitled the Appellant to the claim of cenvat credit. - Accordingly appeal of the appellant is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in invoice dates leading to denial of cenvat credit.
2. Compliance with prescribed procedure for loss of supporting documents affecting cenvat credit claim.
3. Burden of proof and evidence required for claiming cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that a clerical error in the invoice date should not deprive them of cenvat credit. They claimed that all documents relied upon were genuine, supporting their case. However, the tribunal found discrepancies in the dates on the invoices, highlighting that the plea of a clerical mistake did not hold as the error was not consistent throughout the document. Consequently, the claim for cenvat credit was rightly denied based on this discrepancy.

2. The Revenue contended that there was a prescribed procedure, as per Circular No. 68/68/64-CX, to address the loss of supporting documents for cenvat credit claims. Since the appellant did not comply with this procedure, the appellate authority correctly ruled against them. The failure to follow the prescribed procedure led to the disentitlement of the appellant to the cenvat credit claim, as per the tribunal's decision.

3. Cenvat credit is a benefit granted upon the claimant proving their case with clean hands and providing sufficient evidence. The tribunal emphasized the importance of proper documentation and evidence to support a cenvat credit claim. In this case, the tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide adequate evidence and authentication for the documents relied upon, leading to the dismissal of their appeal for cenvat credit. The burden of proof was not met, resulting in the denial of the appellant's claim.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the denial of cenvat credit to the appellant due to discrepancies in invoice dates, non-compliance with prescribed procedures for loss of supporting documents, and insufficient evidence to support the claim. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of accurate documentation and compliance with procedures in claiming cenvat credit.