2016 (5) TMI 744 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility of Cenvat credit - Invoices in which serial numbers are hand-written and not pre-printed - Revenue contended that pre-printed serial numbers on the invoices is a mandatory requirement and hand-written serial numbers will not be acceptable - Held that - as per Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, it is not mandatory that the invoices issued under Central Excise Rules, 2002 should be pre-printed. At the same time it is also observed that under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat Credit shall not be denied on the grounds that any of the documents mentioned in sub-rule 1 does not contain all the particulars required to be contained under these Rules. In case there is any discrepancy then the same can be verified from the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer, having jurisdiction over the supplier of the inputs, to ensure that the appropriate Central Excise duty has been paid on inputs. In the light of the above observations, under the provisions of existing Central Excise Rules 11(2) it is not mandatory to have pre-printed invoices. It is not the case of the Revenue that the duty-paid inputs have not been received by the Appellant and further not utilized in the manufacture of the finished goods. It is now a well settled legal proposition that minor procedural lapses cannot be made the basis for denying Cenvat Credit. Accordingly Cenvat Credit on the basis of invoices having hand-written serial numbers cannot be denied to the Appellant. Demand and imposition of penalty - Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Plastic crates - Appellant argued that no Education Cess was payable when plastic crates and glass bottles were received for the first time on payment of duty for which credit was taken - Held that - once a stand was taken by the Appellant before the adjudicating authority then it has to be established by the Revenue that Cenvat Credit of Education Cess in fact was taken by the Appellant. By applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Auto Ignition Ltd. 2008 (4) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT , once an assesse takes a stand that Modvat credit with respect to inputs is not availed, then onus is shifted to the Revenue to establish that credit is taken by an assessee. Accordingly the demand of is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty.
2. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on hand-written serial numbers on invoices.
3. Payment of Education Cess on plastic crates and clearance during 2006-07.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant challenged the denial of Cenvat Credit amounting to ?6,00,893 and the penalty imposed. The dispute included demands related to removal of inputs and invoices with hand-written serial numbers. The Appellant argued that no Education Cess was payable on plastic crates received in 2001-02, hence no reversal of Cenvat Credit was required during clearance.

2. The Advocate for the Appellant cited the CESTAT Larger Bench judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Satyen Dyes, highlighting the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on hand-written serial numbers on invoices. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that pre-printed invoices were mandatory, referencing Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Spectra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002, pre-printing was not obligatory, and minor procedural lapses should not bar Cenvat Credit.

3. Regarding the payment of Education Cess on plastic crates cleared in 2006-07, the Revenue argued that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of not availing Cenvat Credit on Education Cess during receipt. However, the Tribunal emphasized the onus on the Revenue to prove such credit was taken, citing Commissioner of Customs vs. Auto Ignition Ltd. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.06.2012.

This judgment clarifies the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on hand-written serial numbers on invoices, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the burden of proof on the Revenue regarding Cenvat Credit availed by the Appellant.