2013 (8) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Documents for availing Cenvat Credit in terms of rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Lead Oxide, Metallic Stearates, Zinc Oxide etc. they purchased a consignment of inputs and raw materials on high Sea Sales basis. The bill of entry was filed by them and the goods were cleared by availing the services of CHA and various other agencies. As the invoices raised by the services providers were either in the name of CHA, or the original importer a/c appellant - Appellant has availed Cenvat Credit on the Strength of debit notes as shown in Annexure A to the show cause notice - Some bills do not have mention of service tax registration of the service providers, some bills do not have reference of separate service tax amount, some bills are not issued in the appellant s name - Some invoices do not have the reference of name of the service provided Credit to be availed on the basis of proper documents Held that - learned Advocate submission for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal by following the earlier decision of the Hon ble member judicial, in their own case Appeal stands allowed with direction to the appellant to file affidavit that the credit shall not be subjected to repeated claim in different hands i.e. one in the hands of the appellant and other in the hands of others making abuse of those documents - Assessee to file affidavit for himself and no affidavit can be filed on behalf of the other persons, swearing that the other person will not claim the credit on the basis of the said documents - Unable to follow the above order and to allow the appeal on the short ground of filing of affidavit by the appellant on behalf of others Case remanded back for deciding the issue on merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit based on debit notes.
2. Proper documentation for availing Cenvat Credit.
3. Denial of credit by original adjudicating authority.
4. Submission of pleas by the appellant.
5. Tribunal's decision and reliance on previous judgments.
6. Remand of the matter to original adjudicating authority.
7. Filing of affidavit for non-repeated claim of Cenvat credit.

Analysis:

1. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit based on debit notes, which was challenged as not legally correct under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The show cause notice raised concerns about the invoices not being in the appellant's name and lacking proper documentation for credit availment.

2. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, citing the absence of service tax registration numbers in invoices and documents not being in the appellant's name as reasons for denying credit. Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed relief but still denied a portion of the credit.

3. The appellant submitted various pleas, highlighting that expenses and service tax were connected to the imported goods, which were used for manufacturing dutiable final products. They argued that despite invoices being in the original importers' names, they had made payments and should be entitled to claim the credit.

4. The appellant contended that all necessary particulars were present in the invoices as per relevant rules. They referenced several judgments to support their case, emphasizing that payments were made and accounted for, justifying the credit claim.

5. The Tribunal considered the arguments and directed a remand to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The matter was to be examined in light of whether services were utilized for clearing imported goods and if documents had been endorsed in the appellant's name.

6. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order and appealed based on a previous decision by a member judicial, which required filing an affidavit to prevent repeated claims of Cenvat credit by different parties.

7. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of the issue on its merits. The appellant was directed to file an affidavit to ensure the credit wouldn't be claimed by multiple entities, leading to a final decision pronouncement on the matter.