9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1702 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - confusion about genuineness of the invoice - HELD THAT - It is found from the original copy of the invoice shown, that only a cross mark wherein cheque number and date was mentioned. It was further explained by the Ld. Counsel on the basis of the documents like bank statement and bank payment vouchers wherein it is clearly correlated the cheque number with the said invoice. Therefore, there is no reason for any doubt only because of the cross mark put by the appellant on the invoice. Therefore, the Cenvat credit was denied without any cogent reason. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit based on confusion regarding genuineness of an invoice.
Analysis: The case revolved around the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant concerning Invoice No. 2205303 issued by M/s. Nectar Life Sciences Ltd. The department alleged confusion about the genuineness of the invoice due to a cross mark and some numbers mentioned on it. This led to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent denial of the Cenvat credit, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant's counsel argued that the cross mark on the invoice was merely to indicate the cheque number used for payment to the supplier. Supporting documents such as bank payment vouchers and statements were presented to establish the correlation between the cheque number and the invoice. On reviewing the original invoice and the supporting documents, the presiding Member found no valid reason for doubt regarding the invoice's authenticity. The cross mark was clarified to represent the cheque number, and the denial of Cenvat credit was deemed unjustified. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the evidence, the presiding Member concluded that the denial of Cenvat credit lacked a cogent reason. The impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of thoroughly evaluating the circumstances surrounding the alleged confusion to ensure fair treatment in matters of tax credit entitlement.
|
