2016 (6) TMI 669 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit denied - input service invoices were tampered by affixing their rubber stamp on the same - Held that - The consignee address was initially mentioned as the head office of the Appellant but later corrected by the consignor, by mentioning the factory address of the consignee, with due endorsement by affixing the rubber stamp of the consignor. Assuming that the rubber stamp was affixed after providing the service infirmity in the said invoices by which itself could be made the appellant as ineligible to CENVAT Credit, provided the input services were received and utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished goods in the factory premises Revenue claims that the appellant could not establish receipt and utilization of the input services in their factory whereas the claim of the appellant is categorical in this regard. Ld.Consultant Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay for the appellant vehemently argued that they are in possession with all the relevant evidences by which they could establish that the input services mentioned in the respective invoices were received and utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. To ascertain the said fact, in my opinion, the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose to ascertain whether the input services were received and utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding denial of CENVAT Credit on input service invoices due to alleged tampering and lack of evidence of utilization in manufacturing.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Denial of CENVAT Credit: The appellant availed CENVAT Credit on various inputs but faced denial of credit amounting to Rs. 4,68,567 due to alleged tampering of input service invoices. The appellant argued that the change in address from head office to factory address was legitimate and endorsed by the service provider, indicating no tampering. The appellant contended that the input services were duly received and utilized in their factory, satisfying the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue, however, raised concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the utilization of input services in the manufacturing process.

2. Verification of Utilization of Input Services: The adjudicating authority observed that besides the issue of tampering, the appellant failed to substantiate the claim of utilizing the input services in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods in their factory. The Revenue emphasized the importance of establishing the actual receipt and utilization of input services in the manufacturing process to claim CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the consignee address on the invoices but highlighted that the critical point of contention was whether the input services were genuinely received and used in the manufacturing process at the factory premises.

3. Remand for Further Verification: After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. The purpose of the remand was to ascertain conclusively whether the input services mentioned in the invoices were indeed received and utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The Tribunal stressed the need for a thorough verification process to determine the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT Credit based on actual utilization of input services. The appellant was granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing during the verification process.

4. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of verifying the actual receipt and utilization of input services in the manufacturing process before denying or confirming CENVAT Credit. The decision highlighted the necessity of clear evidence to support claims of utilizing input services in the production of finished goods to prevent unwarranted denial of credit. The remand order aimed to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the facts before reaching a final decision on the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT Credit.

← Previous Next →