2016 (8) TMI 659 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - availment of second 50% of credit on various capital goods - non-maintainance of proper records and non-production of relevant documents in support of these credits - Held that - it was admitted in the show cause notice itself out of 173 invoices, 161 invoices were found in original. Out of remaining 12, 5 invoices are available in photocopies. Keeping in view that the credit has not been disputed on merit and also the first 50% of the credit was also not disputed on the ground of improper documents etc., I find no justification to deny the second 50% of credit on the grounds alleged in the proceedings before the lower Authorities. The appellants claim that certain documents were taken over by DGCEI/Income Tax Department. The correctness of the credit availed can be verified with other corroborative evidences. In such situations summary denial of credit of all the second 50% is not justified. It is to be noted that credit on all these items were not disputed when the first half of the credit was taken spread over a period of many years from 2001 to 2009. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order denying Cenvat credit on capital goods due to lack of proper records and documents.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed Cenvat credit on capital goods during 2001-2009, with the initial 50% as per Cenvat Credit Rules. Subsequently, in August 2011, they claimed the remaining 50% of credit on various capital goods, which was objected to by the Revenue due to alleged lack of proper records and documents. The Original Authority ordered credit recovery and imposed a penalty, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant's Consultant argued that all credit on capital goods was as per applicable rules, with no objections raised by the Department during the initial 50% credit availed over the years. They maintained records, with most invoices available, and no diversion allegations existed. The absence of some original documents was explained, stating that the records were taken by DGCEI officers, and the credits were based on actual goods receipt and proper duty payment records.

On the other hand, the Authorized Representative contended that the burden of proving credit correctness lies with the appellant, and due to missing original documents and delayed availing of the second 50% credit, the denial was justified.

After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the credit on capital goods was undisputed, with the first 50% credit utilized without issues. The objection arose only regarding the second 50% credit availed in 2011, citing missing documents and record maintenance concerns. Notably, out of 173 invoices, most were original, with a few in photocopies, and some not submitted. Given that the credit was not disputed earlier and could be verified with other evidence, the Tribunal found no reason to deny the second 50% credit solely based on alleged document issues. The Tribunal emphasized that summary denial of credit was unwarranted, especially considering the lack of previous disputes during the initial credit availing period from 2001 to 2009.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the lower Authorities' decision, ruling in favor of the appellant by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.