2012 (4) TMI 61 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - on the ground that invoices did not contain necessary details as required under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - . Learned consultant on behalf of the appellants submitted that appellant s grievance is that Cenvat credit has been denied without considering the provisions of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, which provides that Cenvat credit can be allowed even when certain details which are required to be contained in invoices are not available - The fact that Rule 9(2) is an exception to the provisions of Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, has not been taken note of by both the lower authorities - it is necessary to go through the records maintained by the assessee and the documents in detail and thereafter come to a conclusion - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to original adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on grey fabrics due to incomplete invoice details.
2. Applicability of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding invoice particulars.
3. Interpretation of Rule 9(2) as an exception to Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the denial of Cenvat credit on grey fabrics received for processing due to incomplete invoice details. The appellants argued that the denial did not consider Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, which allows credit even if some invoice details are missing. The crucial issue was the absence of the consignee's name in the invoices, deemed essential. The authorities imposed penalties based on this discrepancy.

2. The Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was central to the case, as it specifies that credit cannot be taken unless all prescribed particulars are in the documents. The appellants contended that the invoices, though lacking the consignee's name, met other requirements. The judgment highlighted the importance of the consignee's name as a necessary detail and the authorities' failure to consider Rule 9(2) as an exception to the general invoice requirements.

3. The judgment emphasized the interpretation of Rule 9(2) as an exception to Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, noting that the lower authorities overlooked this aspect. The appellate authority found that the consignee's name, while important, was not explicitly mandated by the Rule's proviso. Hence, a detailed examination of all conditions for Cenvat credit eligibility was warranted. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after a thorough review of the records and documents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment underscores the significance of invoice particulars, the application of relevant rules, and the need for a comprehensive assessment before denying Cenvat credit.