2012 (2) TMI 429 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of CENVAT Credit - Held that - both the lower adjudicating authorities have given concurrent and cogent finding and in terms of Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) the invoices issued by the importer is a valid document. The provisions of Rule 9(1)(ii) and Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) are independent. Therefore I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of both the lower authorities - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal, Availing Cenvat credit based on importer's invoice, Denial of credit by department, Show Cause cum-Demand Notice issued, Lower adjudicating authority's decision, Challenge by Revenue, Interpretation of Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) and Rule 11(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata was lodged by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 56/HAL/2010, dated 22-12-2010, where the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the lower adjudicating authority and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The case revolved around the respondent availing Cenvat credit based on invoices issued by the importer, a practice contested by the department. A Show Cause cum-Demand Notice was issued, but the lower adjudicating authority ruled in favor of the respondent, prompting the Revenue to challenge this decision before the Commissioner (A). The Revenue contended that importer registration for issuing invoices was mandatory under Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) and highlighted Rule 11(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, emphasizing the requirement for excisable goods to be removed under invoice by the owner or authorized agent.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that both lower adjudicating authorities had reached concurrent and cogent conclusions. The Tribunal emphasized the independence of Rule 9(1)(ii) and Rule 9(1)(a)(iii) and determined that the invoices issued by the importer were valid documents under Rule 9(1)(a)(ii). Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the decisions of the lower authorities. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as lacking merit. The Tribunal pronounced its decision in the open court, bringing the matter to a close.