2017 (2) TMI 826 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - capital goods - Interest - It is undisputed that respondent had availed CENVAT credit on capital goods during the period July 2002 to November 2002 - Held that - During the period i.e. July to November 2002, the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 envisaged availment of CENVAT credit only on original or duplicate copies of duty paying documents and there were no exceptions. That being the requirement of law, in my considered view, whatever may be circumstances, CENVAT credit availed by respondent is not in spirit and consonance of law, hence needs to be disallowed - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit on capital goods based on photocopies of invoices.
2. Disputed eligibility of CENVAT credit on machinery invoiced in the name of another entity.
3. Admissibility of CENVAT credit only on original or duplicate copies of duty paying documents.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the Revenue challenging an Order-in-Appeal where the first appellate authority set aside the demands confirmed on the respondent for availing CENVAT credit on capital goods procured for setting up a sugar plant based on photocopies of invoices. The respondent had reversed the disputed amount during the interregnum period.

2. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit on machinery invoiced in the name of another entity was previously decided in favor of the assessee in a separate appeal. The Tribunal found that the issue on merits favored the respondent, allowing them to claim the CENVAT credit.

3. However, the Tribunal observed that the respondent had availed the CENVAT credit on xerox copies of the invoices as the original/duplicate copies of duty paying documents were not provided by the entity mentioned in the invoices. The CENVAT Credit Rules at that time required availing credit only on original or duplicate copies of duty paying documents without exceptions. Therefore, despite the merits of the case, the Tribunal held that the availed credit was not in accordance with the law and needed to be disallowed. The first appellate authority was criticized for overlooking this legal provision.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, disallowing the CENVAT credit availed by the respondent. The Tribunal directed the appropriation of the reversed amount, imposition of interest liability as per the prevailing law, and upheld the penalty imposed. The appeal by the Revenue was allowed, leading to the setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.