2015 (10) TMI 1238 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Credit documents - Held that - It is the case of the appellant that the corrected copies of the cenvat documents were produced before the lower authorities. However, on perusal of case records, it is observed that no such mention is made in the findings of the orders passed by the lower authorities. However, the claim of the appellant that corrected documents were produced by the appellant before the lower authority which makes credit admissible as per proviso to Rule 9(2) of the cenvat Credit Rules 2004. This aspect can only by verified by the Adjudicating Authority whether discrepancies noticed initially were rectified or not as per Proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat credit Rules. The matter is, therefore, required to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority in remand proceedings. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority. Needless to say that the appellant shall be given an opportunity to explain their case regarding rectification of discrepancies before deciding the appeals in denevo proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against OIA regarding cenvat credit
- Compliance with Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004
- Verification of corrected documents
- Remand to Adjudicating Authority

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the Order-in-Original (OIA) related to cenvat credit, where the First Appellate Authority upheld the imposition of cenvat credit, interest, and penalty. The appellant argued that corrected copies of duty paying documents were provided to the Department, making the cenvat credit admissible under the Proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that it was unclear whether the credit documents were presented for inspection during the proceedings.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that while the appellant claimed to have submitted corrected documents, there was no mention of this in the findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority needed to verify whether the discrepancies were rectified in accordance with the Proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for further examination. The appellant was granted the opportunity to clarify the rectification of discrepancies in the pending proceedings. Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the final decision to the Adjudicating Authority after the remand process.