2015 (11) TMI 770 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Credit availed on the basis of photocopy invoice - Held that - Appellants have subsequently produced the original invoice, and the lower authorities were bound to take note of. Further, the Commissioner (A) has observed that the appellants have only produced computer generated worksheet of details of stock of input available on the relevant date and have not produced any evidence to show that such inputs were lying in stock on the date of registration by the appellant. I find that all these facts are verifiable and would be available from the accounts maintained by the assessee. The lower authorities instead of rejecting the appeal on such technical grounds could have called for the relevant records, maintained by the appellant during the course of their regular business. As such, I am of the view that the matter needs to go back to the original adjudicating authority for undertaking the above verifications. I order accordingly and direct the appellant to produce all the relevant documents before the lower authorities to substantiate his claim. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods and inputs, production of original invoice, verification of stock availability on relevant date

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE addressed the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods and inputs by the lower authorities. The denial was based on the capital goods being availed wrongly and the inputs crossing the exemption limit and falling under the excise net. The advocate for the petitioner accepted the denial of credit for capital goods but contested the denial of credit for inputs. The inputs' credit was initially based on a photocopy of the invoice, with the original invoice being produced later before the Commissioner (A). However, the Commissioner (A) rejected this argument, stating that there was no evidence that the inputs were available in stock when duty payment commenced.

The Tribunal noted that the original invoice was subsequently produced by the petitioner, which the lower authorities should have considered. The Commissioner (A) also highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the availability of inputs in stock on the registration date. The Tribunal emphasized that these facts could be verified from the petitioner's maintained accounts, suggesting that the lower authorities should have requested relevant records instead of rejecting the appeal on technical grounds. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for proper verification, with the directive for the petitioner to provide all relevant documents to support their claim. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of thorough verification in such cases.