2015 (2) TMI 958 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit on supplementary invoices issued by job workers - Suppression of fact- Denial of Cenvat Credit- Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) have relied upon the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of job workers wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the job workers have not suppressed the facts and the allegation of suppression was discharged. In these circumstances when the complete finding is on record and nothing contrary has been proved by the Revenue, in these circumstances the impugned order has not infirmity which requires no intervention. The same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by job workers.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order where it was held that the respondents could take Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by job workers. The respondents had obtained excisable goods from job workers who did not pay duty on the goods supplied and did not include the cost of free supplied machineries in the manufacturing cost. The job workers later paid duty with interest, which the respondent claimed as credit. The Revenue contended that the job workers had suppressed facts and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to take Cenvat credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the job workers did not suppress facts, making Rule 9(1)(b) inapplicable.

The Revenue, aggrieved by this decision, appealed. The learned A.R. argued that the Show Cause Notice alleged suppression by the respondents, which was affirmed by the adjudicating authority, justifying denial of Cenvat credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Despite notices, the respondent did not appear or request an adjournment, leading to the appeal being taken up for final disposal. Upon review, it was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on a previous case involving job workers where suppression was not proven. Since the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment affirmed the entitlement of the respondents to take Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by job workers, as the allegation of suppression was not substantiated by the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.