2015 (10) TMI 1635 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Absence of Invoices as well as entry in RG-23 register - Held that - bill of entry was filed on 15.10.2005. The duty payment was made on 19.10.2005. The documents of the CHA indicate that on 20.10.2005 the goods moved through vehicle No. DD03 A9902 which had reached the weigh bridge in Taloja which is near to the factory and they have also produced the payment details to the weigh bridge, which includes number of consignments received by them. The invoices produced by the appellant indicate that the finished products were cleared on payment of duty. Thus, over all it appears that there are some procedural irregularities. However, from the document it is established that the goods were received by the appellant and were used in the manufacturing process and the finished goods were cleared on payment of duty - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of credit on imported goods due to procedural irregularities.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, who received wire rods from P.K. Trading Co. for reducing thickness. The appellant faced a challenge as the bill of entry was not in their name, lacked an invoice from the supplier, and had no entry in the RG-23 Part I register, leading to a proposed denial of credit on the goods. The appellant contended that they had informed the Appraising Officer about the transfer of goods to their unit at the time of import, supported by documentation such as letters, duty payment details, and weighment slip from a weight bridge. The appellant also highlighted the payment of additional duty on the final product and entries in the RG23 Part II register, indicating the utilization of inputs in the manufacturing process.

On the other hand, the Additional Commissioner argued against the appellant, pointing out the absence of an endorsement on the bill of entry, the necessity of an invoice from the supplier in the appellant's name, and the lack of entry in the RG-23 Part I register. The Additional Commissioner contended that these factors indicated that the goods were not received in the appellant's factory, warranting a rejection of the appeal.

Upon reviewing the submissions and documents, the judge noted the procedural irregularities but established through evidence that the goods were indeed received by the appellant, used in the manufacturing process, and the finished products were cleared after duty payment. Despite the identified irregularities, the judge concluded that there was no justification to deny the cenvat credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, ruling in favor of the appellant.