2012 (9) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Proof of invoices as issued by manufacturer - Held that - It is not improper to direct the adjudicating authority to inquire as to whether quadruplicate copy of bills were issued by the manufacturer of capital goods and, also to inquire whether the excise duty collected through those bills have gone into the treasury.

Summary

Issues involved: Remand of matter to adjudicating authority for inquiry into Cenvat credit claim on excise duty paid on input and capital goods.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the dissatisfaction of the department with the evidence presented by the appellant regarding the claim of Cenvat credit on excise duty paid on input. The judge mentions that it is within the Revenue's purview to conduct an inquiry to verify the authenticity of the invoices and whether the excise duty paid on the input has been deposited in the treasury. If the inquiry yields positive results, the appellant's grievance should be resolved.

2. The judgment notes the agreement by the learned Jt. CDR for the inquiry proposed by the appellant's counsel.

3. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the judge observes that the appellant did not conceal the details of their claim for Cenvat credit on capital goods. However, the evidence provided was not deemed acceptable by the Revenue. The judge suggests directing the adjudicating authority to investigate whether the manufacturer issued the required copies of bills for capital goods and whether the excise duty collected through these bills was indeed deposited in the treasury. If the authenticity of the invoices and the deposit of excise duty are confirmed, the appellant should succeed before the adjudicating authority.

4. Consequently, the judgment disposes of both the stay application and the appeal by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for further inquiry as specified.

5. The judgment also mentions the Revenue's appeal, which was not listed but brought to attention. Both parties agree that no stay application has been filed by the Revenue against its appeal. The Revenue's appeal is likewise remanded for a fresh review by the adjudicating authority.

6. The judgment concludes by stating that due to the remand of the matter for inquiry, it is premature to comment on the Revenue's appeal, which will be re-evaluated by the adjudicating authority.

In summary, the judgment primarily focuses on the need for an inquiry by the adjudicating authority to verify the authenticity of invoices and the deposit of excise duty in relation to the appellant's Cenvat credit claims on excise duty paid on input and capital goods. The decision emphasizes the importance of proper verification and investigation to address the concerns raised by the Revenue and ensure a fair resolution of the matter.