2013 (10) TMI 619 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit on Goods Transport Agency Service duty paying document - excise number of other unit was mentioned wrongly in GAR-7 challan - Waiver of Pre-deposit - The only objection of the department is that in the GAR-7, the excise registration of the appellant is wrongly mentioned Held that - The credit had been taken on the basis of GAR-7 under which this amount of service tax on GTA service received had been paid - Ongoing through the GAR-7 it is seen that while the name of the appellant and address is correctly mentioned and the mistake is only the Central excise registration which is of the Khandsa road unit - Prima facie for this mistake the denial of Cenvat credit is not correct. The credit had been taken are bear the address of Khandsa road unit, the service providers had issued letters making corrections in these invoices - the appellant have prima facie case in their favour - The requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,87,577 for GTA service due to incorrect Central Excise registration number in GAR-7.
2. Denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 59,876 based on invoices issued to a different unit.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant had two manufacturing units, and the dispute centered around the Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,87,577 for GTA service received by the Patudi unit. The service tax was paid under GAR-7 dated 05/10/07, but the department objected to the credit due to the incorrect Central Excise registration number mentioned in the GAR-7, which belonged to the Khandsa road unit. Despite the correct mention of the appellant's name and address, the department sought to deny the credit. The appellant argued that the denial was unfounded as it was merely a mistake in the registration number. The judge agreed that the denial based solely on this mistake was incorrect and ruled in favor of the appellant.

2. The second issue revolved around the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 59,876 based on eight invoices issued to the Khandsa road unit instead of the Patudi unit. The appellant contended that the service providers had subsequently corrected the invoices to reflect the Patudi unit as the recipient. Additionally, the Khandsa road unit confirmed that they had not claimed any credit based on those invoices. The judge found that the denial of credit in this case was also unjustified, considering the corrections made by the service providers and the confirmation from the Khandsa road unit. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that they had a prima facie case in their favor.

In conclusion, the judge waived the requirement of pre-deposit for the Cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty, allowing the appeal to proceed without immediate recovery until the final disposal of the case. The stay application was granted in favor of the appellant.