2012 (8) TMI 537 - AT - Central Excise

Ineligible claim of cenvat credit - appellant has not recorded the receipt of the inputs in RG 23A Part-1 register - Held that - The material period involved in this case is August 2003 & from the year 2000, the necessity or the statutory requirement of maintaining RG 23A Part-1 & Part 2 registers have been done away with and it is for the assessee to justify his claim for the cenvat credit with the help of the private records maintained by him. The appellant had produced records of inward register maintained at security specifically recorded the receipt of copper tube from supplier at various dates and on perusal of the entries in the stock register there is no overwriting of any sort in respect of most of the entries made in said inward register as disputed by AO - the appellants have produced certificates issued by the said supplier indicating that the inputs were delivered to the appellant factory in the suppliers own truck/tempo, hence they have not issued any LR, as against these evidences the Revenue has not putforth any contrary evidence in the form of any inculpatory statement of the appellant s functionaries, the driver of tempo or of the supplier of inputs - in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed by authorities.
2. Eligibility for cenvat credit on duty paid on inputs.
3. Failure to record receipt of inputs in RG 23A Part-1 register.
4. Dispute over evidence of receipt of goods in factory premises.
5. Fact-based issue of proving receipt of inputs from six invoices.
6. Contention regarding absence of LR/consignment note as evidence.
7. Dispute over overwriting in inward register entries.
8. Examination of stock register and production issue slips.
9. Analysis of ledger accounts for recording of invoices.
10. Justification for non-entry in RG 23A Part-1 register.
11. Statutory requirement of maintaining records for cenvat credit.
12. Consideration of private records as evidence of receipt and consumption.
13. Absence of contrary evidence from Revenue regarding receipt of inputs.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHMEDABAD, involved a stay petition for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed by the authorities regarding the eligibility for cenvat credit on duty paid on inputs. The appellant failed to record the receipt of inputs in RG 23A Part-1 register, leading to the dispute. The issue revolved around proving the receipt of inputs from six invoices, with the department arguing the lack of evidence such as LR/consignment notes. However, the appellant presented records, including the inward register, stock register, production issue slips, and ledger accounts, to demonstrate receipt and consumption of inputs.

The Tribunal found that the inward register maintained by the appellant recorded the receipt of copper tubes from the supplier, with only minor disputes over entries. The stock register and production issue slips further supported the receipt and utilization of the inputs. The ledger accounts also indicated payment to the supplier against the disputed invoices, strengthening the appellant's case. Despite the non-entry in the RG 23A Part-1 register, the Tribunal considered the private records as sufficient evidence of receipt and consumption.

Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted the statutory requirement of maintaining records for cenvat credit and noted the appellant's compliance with maintaining records indicating receipt and consumption of inputs. The absence of contrary evidence from the Revenue, such as inculpatory statements, further supported the appellant's claim. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal based on the factual matrix presented and the appellant's ability to prove receipt and consumption of inputs despite the oversight in the register entry.

← Previous Next →