2013 (11) TMI 1471 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit - Details in the dealer s invoice not matching with the manufacturer s invoice Held that - The dealer s invoice containing both the commercial invoice number and excise invoice number - the appellant should be given an opportunity to correlate dealer s invoice with the manufacturer s invoice - the orders set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority to examine the documents and decide the matter afresh after considering the documents placed by the appellant Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT credit on Furnace Oil due to discrepancies in dealer's and manufacturer's invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved the denial of CENVAT credit on Furnace Oil by the adjudicating authority for the period December 2007 to November 2010. The reason cited was that the details in the dealer's invoice did not match with the manufacturer's invoice. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision and provided a table highlighting the discrepancies in the invoices. The appellant's counsel argued that the dealer's invoices contained both excise and commercial invoice numbers, leading to confusion. The discrepancies arose as the Revenue sometimes followed the commercial invoice number and other times the excise invoice number. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the absence of a specific excise invoice number mentioned in the show-cause notice, which led to further confusion. The appellant requested an opportunity to correlate the dealer's invoice with the manufacturer's invoice to clarify the mismatch.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the dealer's invoices indeed contained both commercial and excise invoice numbers, leading to the confusion. The Tribunal decided that the appellant should be given a chance to align the dealer's invoices with the manufacturer's invoices. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the original authority for a fresh examination. The appellant was directed to present all relevant documents within three months for verification. It was emphasized that the appellant needed to demonstrate the correlation between the dealer's and manufacturer's invoices to resolve the discrepancies. The appeal was allowed by remand, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on providing the appellant with an opportunity to clarify the discrepancies between the dealer's and manufacturer's invoices regarding the availed CENVAT credit on Furnace Oil. The case was remanded to the original authority for a fresh examination based on the documents to be submitted by the appellant within a specified timeframe.