2012 (12) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit alleged that the invoices are in the name of M/s. United Alkalies Ghaziabad although these invoices also bear the name & address of the appellants as consignee Held that - Credit in respect of the said invoices could not be denied on such ground of the alleged non-submission of documentary/duplicate copy of the invoices particularly in the face of the said facts and documentary/corroboratory evidence - credit was allowed by the appellate authority after verification of the documents in terms of the observation made by the Tribunal in the earlier order while remanding the matter - substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural/hypertechnical objection - Revenue s appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Modvat credit by the respondents.
2. Denial of credit on invoices issued by M/s. BPCL.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availment of Modvat credit by the respondents
The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the availment of Modvat credit by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the credit based on the findings that the goods were originally sent by M/s. United Alkalies but the appellants' name was later introduced, as the respondents had placed orders through M/s. United Alkalies. The Commissioner verified all facts and supporting documents, confirming the duty paid character of the inputs received, their receipt in the factory, and their utilization in manufacturing the final product. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's attempt to deny credit on technical grounds was not justified, as all necessary requirements were met.

Issue 2: Denial of credit on invoices issued by M/s. BPCL
The second dispute pertains to the denial of credit on invoices issued by M/s. BPCL. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the credit solely because the original/duplicate copies of the invoices were not produced. However, it was noted that the original invoices were seized by the Revenue authorities, and the appellants had submitted attested photocopies to the lower authorities. The Tribunal, in a remand order, observed that credit could not be denied solely on the grounds of non-submission of original/duplicate copies, especially when the department had seized the original documents. The Tribunal further emphasized that the duty paid nature of the goods and their utilization in manufacturing the final product were not in dispute. The Tribunal allowed the credit based on the supporting documents provided by the appellants, including ledger accounts and bank statements, which corroborated the transactions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) in both disputes, emphasizing that substantive benefits should not be denied on procedural or hyper-technical objections. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the credit availed by the respondents was deemed justified based on the evidence and legal principles presented in the case.