2012 (10) TMI 36 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit Held that - There is no dispute regarding receipt of goods, use thereof in the manufacture by the assessees and the duty paid nature of the goods - even if the assessees have not been able to establish that the goods were directly purchased from the manufacturer through M/s. S.S.S. Products, the substantive right to credit cannot be denied for contravention of M/s. S.S.S. Products in not getting themselves registered, particularly when the violation cannot be attributed to the assessees who have no control over the dealer - substantive right cannot be denied in such a situation - assessees are eligible to credit

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of credit based on documents from an unregistered dealer.
2. Denial of credit due to lack of registration by the dealer.
3. Substantive right to credit when dealer is unregistered.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing aluminum products and availing exemption under SSI notification, claimed credit based on documents from an unregistered dealer, M/s. S.S.S. Products. The department contended that the credit was inadmissible as the document was not a valid duty paying document under Rule 7(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. A show-cause notice proposing disallowance of credit, interest, and penalty was issued, leading to the present appeal.

2. The dispute centered on whether the credit should be denied due to the unregistered status of M/s. S.S.S. Products, the intermediary dealer. Despite the lack of proof that the goods were directly purchased from the manufacturer, the Tribunal held that the substantive right to credit cannot be denied solely based on the dealer's registration status. Citing precedents like Eveready Industries India Ltd. and Ashok Leyland Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that the violation by the intermediary dealer should not penalize the appellants who had no control over the dealer.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, asserting their eligibility for credit on merit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment highlighted the principle that the substantive right to credit should not be denied when the violation by an intermediary dealer, such as being unregistered, is beyond the control of the appellants. This decision aligns with established precedents and ensures fairness in excise duty credit matters.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues raised in the case and provides a detailed overview of the Tribunal's decision and reasoning.