2015 (4) TMI 644 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - quantity corresponding to invoices and challan does not match - date of challan and invoices differs and in six cases vehicle numbers also differs - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - during the course of the audit between challan and invoices. There are three types of discrepancies a) Quantity, b) Difference in dates of invoice and challan, c) Vehicle Number does not match. The appellant has explained all the discrepancies in detail and tried to justify the clarifications regarding quantity it is explained that on the same date two invoices has been issued and quantity of one invoice has been taken into consideration, if quantity of both the invoices is taken into consideration then there will be no difference in quantity. Goods have been loaded to some other vehicle. Therefore, there is a difference in vehicle number. It is a fact that goods have been received by the appellant in their factory as goods have been manufactured from the inputs of same has been cleared on payment of duty. Moreover, no statement of the supplier of goods and the transporter have been recorded to corroborate the allegations against the appellant. Further, I find that appellant has produced a certificate from the supplier of goods that they have supplied the goods and received the payment through account payee cheque. These facts have not been controverted by the revenue at any stage. - goods have been received by the appellant and duty has been paid there on. Therefore appellant are entitled to take Cenvat Credit. - Decided ain favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit along with interest and penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 based on discrepancies in invoices and challans.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellant, a manufacturer of machine parts, faced denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 19,63,779 along with interest and penalty due to discrepancies in invoices and challans during an audit for the period 2005-06 and 2006-07.

2. Appellant's Submissions: The appellant explained the discrepancies by stating that invoices were issued after goods were cleared under challans, leading to date variations. They clarified that quantity differences arose from issuing multiple invoices on the same day. The appellant emphasized that goods were received and used in manufacturing, supporting their entitlement to credit.

3. Revenue's Position: The Revenue argued that discrepancies in weight, dates, and vehicle numbers justified denying Cenvat Credit as per Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. They contended that goods were not received against challans, warranting credit denial.

4. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal examined the explanations provided by the appellant and found them reasonable. It noted the absence of investigations into suppliers or transporters and the appellant's production of a certificate from the supplier. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedent cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that goods were received and duty paid, entitling the appellant to Cenvat Credit.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant based on the facts presented and the entitlement to Cenvat Credit established during the proceedings.