2015 (9) TMI 980 - AT - Central Excise

Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - duty paying document - Demand of interest - Held that - Invoices, on which credit was disputed was issued by manufacturer and the appellant s name is clearly appearing as consignee therefore the invoices in question squarely covered by clause (a) of sub rule 1 of Rule 9. I do not agree with the Revenue s contention that in case of purchase of input from dealer invoices should be issued by first stage dealer or second stage dealer. In my view only in case where the input is purchased directly from a dealer on his invoices and the manufacturer invoices is not indicated the name of the recipient as consignee the first stage dealer or second stage dealer as case may be is registered with Central Excise should issue invoices as provided under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, in the present case invoices on which credit was taken issued by manufacturer and appellant s name is appearing as consignee, in such cases credit is admissible on these invoices and there is no need of separate invoices to be issued by the registered dealer for taking credit. For taking Cenvat Credit on input it is not mandatory that payment towards purchase of the input has to be made. There are number of transactions in the trade such as procurement input from group company, sister concern on payment of duty procurement of input for job work etc. in such transaction there is no transaction of any payments towards supply of inputs, despite this position Cenvat credit is admissible and can not be disputed so long input is duty paid, received in the factory and used in the manufacture. In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that appellant have correctly and legally availed the Cenvat Credit on the invoices wherein appellant name is appearing as consignee and name of the M/s. Somaiya Steel Corporation and M/s. Hansraj Karsanraj & Co., appearing as buyer therefore I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Disallowance of Cenvat credit on invoices with different consignee and buyer names
- Interpretation of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding admissibility of credit
- Requirement of invoices from first stage or second stage dealers for availing Cenvat credit
- Payment towards input procurement as a criterion for availing credit

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Cenvat credit on invoices with different consignee and buyer names
The appellant, a manufacturer, availed Cenvat credit on invoices where their name appeared as consignee, but buyer's name was different. The Revenue contended that credit can only be allowed based on invoices from first or second stage dealers. The appellant argued that they are entitled to credit as consignee, regardless of the buyer's identity. They emphasized that being the consignee, they were the actual buyer from the sellers mentioned. The Tribunal noted similar cases where credit was allowed based on consignee details and upheld the appellant's right to credit.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding admissibility of credit
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 9, which specifies documents for Cenvat credit. It highlighted that invoices issued by the manufacturer for goods clearance, where the appellant is the consignee, fall under the rule's provisions. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that credit requires invoices from dealers, emphasizing that manufacturer-issued invoices with the appellant as consignee suffice for credit eligibility.

Issue 3: Requirement of invoices from first stage or second stage dealers for availing Cenvat credit
The Tribunal clarified that direct purchase from a dealer necessitates dealer-issued invoices, as per Central Excise Rules. However, in cases like the appellant's, where manufacturer-issued invoices list the appellant as consignee, separate dealer invoices are unnecessary for credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's payment to intermediary dealers validated the transactions, supporting credit eligibility.

Issue 4: Payment towards input procurement as a criterion for availing credit
The Revenue argued that lack of payment to manufacturer suppliers invalidated credit eligibility. However, the Tribunal deemed this argument baseless, as the appellant paid intermediary dealers who, in turn, paid the manufacturer. The Tribunal cited precedents and industry practices where credit is allowed without direct payment, as long as inputs are duty-paid and used in manufacturing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Revenue's decision and allowed the appeals, affirming the appellant's rightful Cenvat credit claim.