2011 (6) TMI 440 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - denial of claim as invoices based on which the credit was sought did not contain relevant information regarding the valuation of the product - Held that - The deficiency in documents sought to be made good by the appellants by producing the invoices issued by the Panipat Refinery to the depot in relation to the same goods. Neither the adjudicating authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) ever doubted the credibility of any of such copies of invoices of Panipat Refinery. As the goods were actually received in the factory was not in dispute taking into consideration the mandate of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit, it is held that denial of credit is unjustified - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing appeal, denial of credit based on incomplete invoices, justification for availing credit, requirement of documents under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad, dismissing the appellants' appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority. The Assistant Commissioner had confirmed a demand along with interest and penalties under Rule 13(1) and Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which led to the appellants filing an appeal. The main issue revolved around the denial of credit due to incomplete invoices lacking information on product valuation and duty suffered. The appellants argued that the credit availed was equivalent to the duty suffered, supported by original invoices from the refinery. The DR, on the other hand, contended that the invoices did not meet the requirements and no evidence was produced during the proceedings to establish duty payment on inputs. The adjudicating authority noted the cessation of duty payment facility at a terminal, emphasizing the need for proper documentation.

In the analysis of the impugned order, the Tribunal considered Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which specifies the documents necessary for claiming credit, primarily focusing on invoices. While acknowledging the deficiencies in the dealer's invoices regarding product valuation and duty information, the Tribunal highlighted the appellants' efforts to supplement this by providing invoices from the refinery to the depot, demonstrating the duty amount. The credibility of these refinery invoices was not questioned by the authorities, and the receipt of goods at the factory was undisputed. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the denial of credit was not in line with the legal provisions.

Based on the application of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules to the case facts, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of credit was unjustified. Accordingly, the appeal was successful, and both the impugned order and the adjudicating authority's order were set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellants.