2012 (9) TMI 209 - AT - Central Excise

Disallowance on Cenvat credit for default documents - invoice in the name of registered office was used for multiple claims by the appellant for it is various units - Held that - The appeal is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to call for an affidavit from the appellant stating clearly that the present claim in this appeal is the only claim against the invoice concerned existed in the name of registered office and no multiple claim has been made or shall be made in respect of the same invoice and there should be specific statement in the affidavit that for any loss of Revenue in future in respect of the same invoice the appellant shall indemnify Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of Cenvat credit based on technical difference in documentation leading to multiple claims and safeguarding Revenue's interest.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, addressed the issue of Cenvat credit claimed by the appellant based on a technical difference in documentation, specifically regarding the receipt of service in the manufacturing unit being undisputed but the documents being in the name of the registered office. The appellate order highlighted that the admissibility of Cenvat credit was questioned due to this technical discrepancy. The Revenue, represented by the learned Jt. CDR, raised concerns about the possibility of the invoice in the name of the registered office being utilized for multiple claims by the appellant across its various units. This led to the core dispute focusing on preventing multiple claims to safeguard the Revenue's interests.

To resolve the dispute and prevent multiple claims, the judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that the claim for Cenvat credit does not exceed the amount of service tax paid on the service availed. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal to the adjudicating authority with specific instructions. The appellant was required to submit an affidavit confirming that the present claim in the appeal is the sole claim against the invoice associated with the registered office and that no multiple claims have been or will be made for the same invoice. Additionally, the appellant had to provide a clear statement in the affidavit committing to indemnify the Revenue for any potential loss in the future related to the same invoice, without prejudicing any other legal recourse available to the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment remanded the appeal to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of addressing the concerns regarding multiple claims and safeguarding the Revenue's interests. This decision resulted in the disposal of both the stay application and the appeal, emphasizing the importance of compliance with documentation requirements to prevent potential revenue losses and ensure fair utilization of Cenvat credit.