2017 (6) TMI 617 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - denial on the ground that the appellants purchased the goods from the unregistered dealers (appearing as buyers in the invoice) and not from any manufacturer or registered dealers - Held that - there is no dispute that the appellant availed credit on the basis of the documents as indicated in Rule 9(1) of CCR, 2004. Further, the appellant as manufacturer of the final product maintained the records as provided in Rule 9(5) of the Rules. The Tribunal on an identical issue in the case of Jupiter Alloy & Steel (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-IV 2016 (12) TMI 1217 - CESTAT KOLKATA , has held that there is no dispute that both the duty paid inputs and the documents indicating payment of duty were received by the appellant and used in the manufacture of finished goods. It is now a well accepted legal proposition that minor procedural lapses cannot be made as a basis for denying credit to the manufacturer. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegation of failure to submit documentary evidence
- Interpretation of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Applicability of Rule 9(4) regarding maintenance of records by dealers
- Comparison with a similar case involving transit sale
- Decision based on procedural lapses

Allegation of Failure to Submit Documentary Evidence:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal, alleging that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to support the claim that goods were received from manufacturers or dealers for the manufacture of finished products. The Revenue contended that the appellant purchased goods from unregistered dealers, as per the invoices, leading to a show-cause notice for recovery of CENVAT Credit and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the charges, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the Revenue, prompting the present appeal.

Interpretation of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, emphasizing the importance of documents specified under sub-rule (1) for availing CENVAT Credit. It highlighted that Rule 9(2) mandates disallowing credit if all prescribed particulars are not contained in the documents. Additionally, Rule 9(4) and (5) require dealers and manufacturers of final products to maintain records. The rule clarifies that manufacturers can claim credit for excise duty paid on inputs received for manufacturing final products, which the appellant did based on proper documentation and record-keeping.

Applicability of Rule 9(4) Regarding Maintenance of Records by Dealers:
The Tribunal determined that Rule 9(4) pertains to record-keeping by dealers, not manufacturers. In this case, the appellant availed credit through a middleman, receiving inputs directly from a dealer registered with Central Excise authorities. Citing a similar precedent, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's actions aligned with legal procedures, and minor procedural lapses should not be grounds for denying credit.

Comparison with a Similar Case Involving Transit Sale:
Referencing a case involving transit sale, the Tribunal highlighted a relevant CBEC Circular exempting dealers in transit sales from mandatory registration. The decision emphasized that the appellant's compliance with prescribed procedures, including receiving duty-paid inputs and associated documents for manufacturing finished goods, warranted credit approval despite procedural discrepancies.

Decision Based on Procedural Lapses:
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal based on the established legal principles and precedents. The decision underscored that minor procedural lapses should not hinder a manufacturer's entitlement to CENVAT Credit, reinforcing the importance of adherence to substantive requirements over procedural technicalities.