2017 (4) TMI 741 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - PCV raisin used by the appellant in the manufacture and clearance of battery separator - duty paying documents - The whole case against the appellant is that they have illicitly procured raw materials, manufactured finished goods and cleared in a clandestine manner - Held that - Rule 9 stipulates the records to be maintained and documents required for availing such Credit - In the present case, admittedly there is no documented transaction between M/s. Marvelous Impex and the appellant. Hence, the question of duty paid receipt of PVC resin by the appellant cannot be established. In the illicit transaction involving the raw material PVC resin, the question of having any documented receipt of such raw material and more importantly, duty payment of such input cannot be established. In the present case, no such attempt is being made by the appellant for obvious reasons. Credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for Cenvat Credit on raw material used in manufacturing battery separators.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order confirming Central Excise Duty demand and penalty on the appellant for alleged clandestine manufacturing and clearance of PVC battery separators. The appellant sought Cenvat Credit on PVC raisin used in manufacturing, which was sourced from another concern owned by the appellant's proprietor. The appellant contended that since duty demand was confirmed based on the raw material supplied by the related concern, credit should be allowed. The Revenue argued that lack of documented evidence of duty payment by the appellant for the raw material disqualifies them from claiming credit. The Tribunal noted the absence of documented transactions between the concerns and emphasized the necessity of proof of duty payment for availing Cenvat Credit.

The eligibility for Cenvat Credit hinged on the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which require proper records and documented evidence of duty payment on inputs used in manufacturing. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of documented transactions between the concerns and the absence of evidence establishing duty payment by the appellant for the raw material. The appellant's assertion that ownership connection between the concerns should warrant credit was dismissed, emphasizing the essentiality of duty payment proof for credit eligibility.

The Tribunal examined relevant case laws cited by both parties but found them inapplicable to the present situation. It emphasized that the case did not concern denial of credit due to non-registration but revolved around the absence of documented proof of duty payment for the raw material. The decision underscored that availing Cenvat Credit necessitates documented evidence of duty payment on inputs, a requirement not met in the appellant's case due to the lack of documented transactions and proof of duty payment.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no legal or factual basis to support the appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit on the raw material. The decision highlighted the fundamental requirement of duty payment by the claimant for availing credit, which was not established in the absence of documented proof. Consequently, the appeal was deemed without merit and dismissed, upholding the original order confirming duty demand and penalty against the appellant.