2008 (8) TMI 345 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - Extra Copies of Invoice - Penalty under rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (erstwhile rule 173Q(1)(bbb) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944) - held that -Credit not allowed on extra copy of invoice as extra copies not valid documents to avail Cenvat credit - Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Invoices not marked Duplicate for transporter - Technical error and it is settled law that credit on such invoices need not be denied - Credit allowed - Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Stamping of Sl. No. by rubber stamp enough to avail credit - Credit allowed - Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Imposition of penalty needs to be considered sympathetically as confusion in trade during relevant period - No need for penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb)

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of credit on specific invoices
- Availment of Cenvat/Modvat credit
- Lack of evidence for credit availed
- Denial of credit based on technical error
- Availment of credit on invoices with missing serial numbers
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944

Analysis:

1. Denial of credit on specific invoices:
The appeal challenged the denial of credit on certain invoices by the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal reviewed the invoices and found discrepancies in the denial of credit. For example, in the case of invoices from Gonterimann and Peipers, the appellant had availed credit on what was alleged to be extra copies of invoices. However, upon examination, it was determined that there was no indication on the invoices that they were extra copies. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the credit on these invoices, setting aside the impugned order.

2. Availment of Cenvat/Modvat credit:
Regarding the credit availed on invoices from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Chinchwad Depot and HP Terminal, Loni, the Tribunal found that the denial of credit based on the absence of "duplicate for transporter" marking was unwarranted. It was established that such marking was a technicality and did not invalidate the credit claim. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the credit on these invoices, setting aside the previous order.

3. Lack of evidence for credit availed:
In the case of credit amounting to Rs. 139/- related to Orino-Toni Refractories Ltd., the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence or invoices to support the credit claim. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the denial of credit for this amount, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. Denial of credit based on technical error:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of denial of credit on invoices from P. Jain Chemicals & Gases Ltd., Nagar, due to missing serial numbers. Upon examination of the invoices, it was noted that the serial numbers were either typed or stamped, with the stamping deemed acceptable by previous Tribunal rulings. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the credit on these invoices, overturning the previous denial.

5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb):
The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty on the appellant under Rule 173Q(1)(bbb) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty but reduced it. However, the Tribunal, considering the nascent stage of Cenvat/Modvat credit during the relevant period and the confusion in the trade, concluded that penalizing the appellant for such infractions was unwarranted. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, overturning the denial of credit on certain invoices, upholding the denial on others, and setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant.