2015 (2) TMI 1288 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - Revenue entertained a view that the documents on the basis of which the respondent has taken the credit were not proper documents and the invoices issued by RCL, on the basis of which the respondent has taken the credit, were not covering the consignments in question - Held that - As observed by Commissioner (Appeals), there is no doubt that the respondents have received the goods directly from Chennai and have used the same in the manufacture of their final product. As such, the procedural and technical objections raised by the Revenue cannot be appreciated - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on pet coke received from another company.
2. Discrepancy in transport documents and invoices leading to denial of credit.
3. Applicability of duty rate and limitation period for raising demands.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The main issue in this case was the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 12,95,021 on pet coke received by the respondent from another company. The Revenue contended that the documents used by the respondent to claim credit were not proper, leading to the initiation of proceedings against them.

Issue 2: A discrepancy arose regarding the transport of goods and the corresponding invoices. The Revenue argued that the invoices issued by the supplying company did not cover the actual consignments received by the respondent. However, the appellate authority accepted the respondent's explanation that the goods were directly sent to their premises from Chennai, bypassing the usual route through Kurnool. The Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the Revenue's objection regarding the duty rate paid by the supplying company.

Issue 3: Another point of contention was the applicability of duty rates and the limitation period for raising demands. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the demand was barred by limitation and upheld the credit taken by the respondent. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the procedural and technical objections raised by the Revenue were unfounded, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal against the denial of Cenvat credit on pet coke. The judgment focused on the procedural correctness of the credit claim and the validity of the documents supporting the claim, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondent based on the direct receipt and utilization of the goods in the manufacturing process.