2016 (12) TMI 333 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - forged invoices - Held that - I find that the only objection raised by the Department in disallowing CENVAT Credit on the disputed invoices/documents was that these invoices/documents being initially in the name of M/s Lekar Pharma Loan Licensee of the Appellant and not in the name of the Appellant, CENVAT Credit cannot be admissible. I find that the Appellant later corrected the invoices/documents from the input supplier by incorporating their name; besides the said inputs/input services were received and utilized in the manufacture of final products. In the result, the impugned order being devoid of merit is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) denying CENVAT credit on invoices issued in the name of loan licensee.
- Corrected invoices/documents submitted later with appellant's name.
- Admissibility of CENVAT credit on corrected invoices/documents.
- Reference to Tribunal judgment in support of appellant's contention.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) denying CENVAT credit on invoices issued in the name of the loan licensee. The appellant had availed CENVAT credit during a specific period on invoices issued in the name of M/s Lekar Pharma, the loan licensee. The dispute arose as the documents were not in the appellant's name, leading to a demand notice for credit recovery and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand and penalty, prompting the appellant to file the present appeal.

The appellant contended that all invoices/documents initially in the name of M/s Lekar Pharma were later corrected to include the appellant's name as the consignee, duly endorsed by the input supplier. The appellant argued that there was no dispute regarding the receipt and utilization of inputs in the manufacturing process. Despite submitting corrected invoice copies before the authorities, the demand was confirmed. The appellant's advocate cited the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE Salem Vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd to support the validity of corrected invoices for availing CENVAT credit.

The Revenue's Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Department's objection to disallowing CENVAT credit on disputed invoices was based on the initial documents being in the loan licensee's name. However, the appellant subsequently corrected the invoices to include their name, and the inputs were indeed received and utilized in manufacturing. Citing the judgment in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, providing for any consequential relief as per the law.