2017 (5) TMI 1074 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that receipt of inputs could not be established - Held that - as far as the credit against Bill of Entry No.775377, dt.26.06.2008 is concerned, the same is admissible to them. But, since they failed to establish receipt of the inputs against Bill No.461582, dt.19.02.2008, the same is not admissible to them - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Irregular availment of credit against imported inputs.
2. Discrepancy in the address mentioned in Bills of Entry and actual receipt location.
3. Failure to establish receipt of inputs against one Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the irregular availment of credit against imported inputs. The Appellants received imported inputs against two Bills of Entry, but there was a discrepancy in the address mentioned in the Bills of Entry and the actual receipt location at their manufacturing unit.

2. The Appellant contended that although the address in the Bills of Entry was different from the actual receipt location, they had received the inputs in their factory and used them in the manufacture of finished goods. The Chartered Accountant presented documents such as Transport challan, goods receipt note, and stock register to support their claim. However, the Adjudicating Authority did not consider these documents, leading to the confirmation of the demand and imposition of a penalty.

3. Upon review of the relevant documents, including Bills of Entry, Transporter's challan, and stock register, it was established that the Appellant received an imported consignment at their factory premises for one Bill of Entry. However, they failed to prove the receipt of inputs against the other Bill of Entry. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide reasons for disregarding the evidence supporting the Appellant's claim regarding the receipt of inputs at their factory.

4. The Tribunal found that the credit against one Bill of Entry was admissible as the Appellant successfully demonstrated the receipt of inputs at their factory. However, for the other Bill of Entry, where the receipt of inputs was not established, the credit was deemed inadmissible. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to allow credit only against the Bill of Entry where receipt was proven, partially allowing the appeal in favor of the Appellant.