2015 (12) TMI 66 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - Held that - Part of Cenvat credit stands denied on the sole ground that the invoices received by the input suppliers were not duly signed by the authorised representative. Ld. Advocate submits that in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, signature of the authorised representative of the input supplier is not a requisite pre-condition, though he agrees that the same should be signed by the authorised representative. However, he submits that inasmuch as there is no dispute about the receipt of the inputs, the duty paid character of the inputs and their utilisation in the manufacture of the final product, which stands cleared on payment of duty, denial of credit on the said count is not justified. - sole ground for denial of credit is non-appearance of the signature of the input supplier. The said defect is rectifiable defect and in the absence of any allegations that the appellants have not received the inputs, I do not find any justification for denial of credit on the above technical and procedural aspect. Accordingly, confirmation of demand on the said count is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit for duty paid on transformer oil used in repair of transformers.
2. Reversal of Cenvat credit when inputs are sent to job worker but not received back within 180 days.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit due to lack of signature on input supplier invoices.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of Cenvat credit for duty paid on transformer oil used in the repair of transformers. The Revenue argued that since repair does not amount to manufacture, the appellants were not entitled to avail the credit. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, which was contested by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for fresh decision, noting that the confirmation and appropriation of demands lacked justification as there was no proposal in the show cause notice for the same. The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to re-examine this aspect, emphasizing that confirmation and appropriation without a proposal may not be in accordance with the law.

2. The second issue revolved around the reversal of Cenvat credit when inputs were sent to a job worker but not received back within 180 days. The appellants had reversed the credits and re-availed them upon receiving the goods back, agreeing to pay interest on the reversal. The Tribunal held that since the return of goods from the job worker was not in the control of the principal manufacturer and all transactions were duly recorded, there was no mala fide intention to warrant penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty on this ground was set aside.

3. Another aspect of the case involved the denial of Cenvat credit due to unsigned invoices from input suppliers. The appellants argued that the lack of signature by the authorized representative of the input supplier should not justify the denial, citing Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They contended that as long as there was no dispute regarding the receipt and duty paid character of the inputs, denial of credit solely based on the lack of signature was unjustified. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the absence of the input supplier's signature was a rectifiable defect, and since there were no allegations of non-receipt of inputs, the denial of credit on this technical ground was unwarranted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on all three issues, setting aside the confirmation of demands related to transformer oil credit, penalty imposition for delayed return of goods from job worker, and denial of credit based on unsigned invoices. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.