2017 (1) TMI 12 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - Penalty - Interest - Held that - appellant have not submitted correlation between HR/CR coils and HR/CR cut sheet received by them whereas they submitted correlation between HR/CR sheets and components made there from which is not relevant. This clearly shows that direction given by the Tribunal has not been properly complied with by the appellant. I therefore of the view that one more opportunity can be given to the appellant to satisfy to the Adjudicating authority about correlation - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit, Discrepancy in description of goods in invoices, Compliance with Tribunal's direction for correlation between HR/CR coils and sheets.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Original confirming a demand for Cenvat Credit, penalty, and interest. The appellant had taken credit on HR/CR sheets, but the invoices described the goods as HR/CR coils, leading to a discrepancy. The adjudicating authority disallowed a portion of the credit, which was appealed by both the appellant and the revenue. The Tribunal remanded the matter with directions to establish correlation between the coils and sheets. The appellant failed to provide the required correlation, leading to the confirmation of the demand. The appellant contended that the goods received matched the inputs used in manufacturing components, thus credit should be allowed.

The appellant argued that the goods covered by the dealer invoices were indeed received, supporting the allowance of credit. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the discrepancy in descriptions. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the received sheets and the invoiced coils. The previous remand order required correlation between the coils and sheets for credit allowance. However, the appellant failed to provide this correlation, only submitting a correlation between the sheets and components made from them, which was deemed irrelevant. As a result, the Tribunal decided to give the appellant another opportunity to establish the correlation as directed. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further review based on the required correlation. If the correlation is established, the Cenvat credit can be allowed. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for compliance with the Tribunal's direction.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing a correlation between the goods received and those described in the invoices for the allowance of Cenvat Credit. The appellant was given another chance to provide the necessary correlation to satisfy the adjudicating authority for a denovo adjudication order.