2014 (10) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Manual numbering of invoices - Held that - only discrepancy pointed out is that the invoices are numbered by hand and not by franking machine. There is no other discrepancy pointed out. Thus, in view of the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also following the ruling in the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. (2012 (7) TMI 53 - CESTAT, MUMBAI), CENVAT Credit is allowable to the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dismissal for non-compliance of pre-deposit under Section 35F
- Availing CENVAT Credit on invoices without pre-printed serial numbers
- Time bar issue in the show-cause notice
- Imposition of penalty and interest under Cenvat Credit Rules

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer availing CENVAT Credit, filed an appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order under Section 35F. The issue arose from the appellant availing CENVAT Credit on invoices lacking pre-printed serial numbers, totaling a significant amount over a specific period. The appellant contended that the invoices were otherwise informed to the department, highlighting Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows CENVAT Credit if certain prescribed particulars are contained in the document. The appellant also referenced a previous ruling by a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal to support their case, emphasizing that the only requirement is that the invoice should be numbered, not necessarily pre-printed.

Regarding the time bar issue raised by the appellant, the show-cause notice was issued beyond the one-year period, and the appellant argued that the relevant facts had been previously disclosed to the Revenue. Despite these contentions, the Order-in-Original confirmed the proposed demand, imposed a penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and ordered the recovery of interest. The appellant, dissatisfied with the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, approached the Tribunal for redress.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal, presided over by Anil Choudhary, found that the only discrepancy highlighted in the show-cause notice was the handwritten numbering of the invoices, not a lack of essential particulars. Relying on Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the precedent set by the ruling in the case of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that the CENVAT Credit was allowable to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and any consequential relief was to be granted in accordance with the law. The stay application was also disposed of, bringing the matter to a close with a favorable outcome for the appellant.