2013 (5) TMI 423 - AT - Central Excise

Duty paying document - CENVAT credit taken on debit notes - documents specified under Rule 9 (1) - held that -Proviso to Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules gives enough power to the central excise officers to verify certain critical particulars in the documents and thereafter allow credit if the required minimum criteria are satisfied. - Credit allowed - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Claim of CENVAT credit on debit notes not specified under Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
- Whether the debit notes contained all the required particulars as per Rule 9(2) of the said rule.
- Adjudicating authority's confirmation of demand for CENVAT credit along with interest and penalty.
- Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority and directing verification of debit notes with the rules stipulated in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
- Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this appeal revolved around the respondent's claim of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.9,10,394/- on debit notes that were not documents specified under Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, the Revenue contended that the debit notes did not contain all the necessary particulars as mandated by Rule 9(2) of the same rule, leading to the adjudicating authority confirming the demand for the said amount along with interest and penalty.

2. The respondent, in response, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted various documents, including bills, agreements for royalty payments, and statements of accounts related to the services provided and received, along with proof of service tax payment. The Commissioner (Appeals), after reviewing these documents, set aside the adjudicating authority's order and directed the allowance of credit subject to verification of the debit notes in compliance with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

3. Subsequently, the Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order, arguing that the debit notes were not prescribed documents and lacked the necessary particulars specified under Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, upon considering the submissions from both sides, it was noted that the proviso to Rule 9(2) empowered central excise officers to verify critical particulars in documents and allow credit if minimum criteria were met.

4. The appellate tribunal, after a thorough review, found that the respondent had furnished the required particulars as per the rules, and there were no factual discrepancies necessitating further verification. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the disputed CENVAT credit was allowed to the respondent as all relevant documents had already been submitted, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

5. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the allowance of CENVAT credit to the respondent, emphasizing compliance with the rules and the sufficiency of the documents provided to support the claim, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.