2016 (2) TMI 679 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices which were not in their name - Held that - As find from the records that the Appellant had taken a definite stand that they have taken credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the ISD. The Appellant also submitted the ISD invoices before the Tribunal in respect of the demand in question. It is seen that both the authorities below had not examined this issue. It is well settled by the various decisions of the Tribunal as relied upon by the learned Counsel that the jurisdictional officer of recipient of input/input service credit is not competent to adjudicate ISD invoice over the jurisdictional officer of Input Service Distributor (ISD) who is competent to decide this matter. So in my considered view if the Appellant availed the credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the ISD the Adjudicating authority cannot deny the credit. But in the present case there is a factual dispute and it is required to be examined by the Adjudicating authority. In view of the above discussion the impugned order is set aside. The Adjudicating authority is directed to examine as to whether the Appellant availed the credit on the basis of the ISD invoice and thereafter the matter should be decided in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of CENVAT Credit based on invoices not in the name of the Appellant.

In this case, the Appellants were involved in the manufacturing of various products classifiable under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Adjudicating authority disallowed a significant amount of CENVAT Credit along with interest and imposed a penalty on the grounds that the credit was availed based on invoices not in the name of the Appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

The Appellant argued that their head office is registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) and they availed credit based on invoices issued by the ISD. They referred to relevant tribunal decisions to support their claim. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), stating that the Appellant Company has multiple branches and the head office availed credit in the name of these branches, which justified the denial of credit by both lower authorities.

The Member (J) observed that the Appellant maintained that they availed credit based on ISD invoices and submitted these invoices before the Tribunal. It was noted that the lower authorities did not properly examine this crucial issue. Referring to established tribunal decisions, it was emphasized that the jurisdictional officer of the recipient of credit is not authorized to adjudicate ISD invoices; only the competent officer of the ISD can decide on such matters. Therefore, if the credit was indeed availed based on ISD invoices, the Adjudicating authority cannot deny it. However, due to a factual dispute in the present case, the matter needed further examination by the Adjudicating authority.

Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the credit was set aside, and the Adjudicating authority was directed to investigate whether the Appellant indeed availed credit based on ISD invoices. The decision was to be made in accordance with the law after a thorough examination of the factual dispute. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.