2019 (6) TMI 1613 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - valid duty paying documents or not - sale-in-transit - the goods were received in the factory under the cover of duty paying documents issued by second stage dealer, namely, M/s Roshanlal Bhagirathmal and the name of the appellant has been recorded as consignee - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kunststoff Polymers Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Bhopal 2009 (5) TMI 743 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI where it was held that the Cenvat credit cannot be denied so long as the co-relation between goods received by the user manufacturer from the dealer under the dealer s invoice can be established with the goods received by the dealer from the manufacturer. In the present case, there is no dispute that the goods were directly received by the appellant from the second stage dealer, namely, M/s Roshanlal Bhagirathmal and the invoices issued by M/s Roshanlal Bhagirathmal mentioned M/s Ashis Enterprise as the buyers/customers, while at the same time, the name of the appellant is mentioned as consignee . These documents cannot be rendered invalid for taking cenvat credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Cenvat credit availed through unregistered dealers, validity of duty paying documents, applicability of Rule 9(1) and Rule 3(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, disallowance of credit, recovery along with interest, penalty imposition under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, appeal against order-in-original, Tribunal's decision in Kunststoff Polymers Ltd. case, validity of invoices from second stage dealers, relevance of consignee information on invoices.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, who purchased input materials from dealers not categorized as 1st or 2nd Stage Dealers. The appellant, registered with the Central Excise Department due to customer requirements, received goods under duty paying documents from a second stage dealer. A show-cause notice alleged improper cenvat credit availing, leading to disallowance, recovery order, interest imposition, and penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The order-in-original was upheld on appeal, prompting the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the Tribunal referred to the Kunststoff Polymers Ltd. case, where the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on similar circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized the validity of invoices from second stage dealers for cenvat credit under Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, provided goods were directly received by the appellant. Citing precedents, the Tribunal clarified that mentioning another entity as the customer on invoices, while the appellant is the consignee, does not invalidate the documents for cenvat credit purposes.

Applying the principles from the Kunststoff Polymers Ltd. case to the present situation, the Tribunal found the appellant's case aligned with the precedent. Direct receipt of goods by the appellant from the second stage dealer, with consignee information on invoices, did not render the documents invalid for cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal with any consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant rules and precedents, ensuring that the appellant's cenvat credit availing through second stage dealers was valid despite consignee information on invoices. The judgment highlighted the importance of direct receipt of goods and the applicability of Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, in determining the eligibility of documents for cenvat credit purposes.