2017 (9) TMI 153 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 - Held that - No material has been placed before us to indicate that the original invoices or the copies thereafter were placed on record before the Assessing Officer - the CESTAT is justified in remanding the matter with regard to the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit to the assessee to be reconsidered and decided by the Assessing Officer on the verification of the documents. Penalty u/r 15(2) of the Rules read with Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - the CESTAT has manifestly erred in setting aside the order of penalty which infact ought to have been left open for decision of the adjudicating authority while deciding the issue of CENVAT credit. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on documents not specified under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Justification of setting aside penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court concerned the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on documents not specified under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that as per Rule 9 of the Rules, Cenvat Credit cannot be availed unless the specified documents are furnished. The relevant part of Rule 9 specifies the documents on the basis of which Cenvat Credit can be taken. The appellant contended that the respondent had availed Cenvat Credit based on Advice of Transfer Debit (ATD) issued by certain entities, without producing all the required documents as per Rule 9. The Assessing Officer found that the respondent had not provided the necessary documents to claim the Cenvat Credit. The CESTAT also noted that the Cenvat Credit was availed based on incomplete documentary evidence. The High Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, stating that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of documents to determine the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit.

2. The second issue involved the penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court observed that the imposition of the penalty was linked to the outcome of the first issue regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit. The CESTAT had set aside the penalty, which the High Court deemed as an error. The High Court held that the question of penalty should have been left open for the adjudicating authority to decide after re-adjudication on the admissibility of Cenvat Credit. Consequently, the High Court partially allowed the appeal by directing the adjudicating authority to re-examine the admissibility of Cenvat Credit based on the documents provided and to decide on the penalty, if necessary, in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the importance of complying with the specified documents under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availing Cenvat Credit. The Court emphasized the need for thorough verification of documents by the Assessing Officer and clarified that the penalty imposition should be contingent upon the decision regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit.