2017 (11) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - invoices were addressed to the wrong address which was subsequently corrected by the supplier - Held that - if the documents issued by the assessee suffer from some mistake due to inadvertence the same can be corrected subsequently as the author of the invoices has liberty to correct the documents for any mistake as occurred inadvertently subject to condition the correction is not contrary to the fact. In the present case there is no charge of the department that correction made in the invoices is contrary to the fact - There is no prohibition in the law to correct the mistake in the invoice which has occurred inadvertently - CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on input due to discrepancies in invoices.
2. Confirmation of demand by adjudicating authority.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.
4. Appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the denial of Cenvat credit on input due to discrepancies in invoices, such as incorrect addresses, material delivered to different units, missing invoices, excess credit availed, and double availing of capital goods credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of ?4,89,624 out of the proposed ?7,90,195, along with a penalty under Section 11AC and interest. The appellant contested the denial of credit for six invoices amounting to ?1.82 lakhs, arguing that the address discrepancy was rectified by the supplier, making the credit valid. The appellant relied on a judgment to support their case.

2. The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that corrected invoices without departmental intimation cannot be accepted. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the appellant sought relief only for the six invoices totaling ?1.82 lakhs. It was noted that there was no evidence that the inputs were received and used by the appellant. The Tribunal held that inadvertent mistakes in invoices can be corrected by the issuer, as long as the correction aligns with the facts. As there was no evidence of incorrect corrections, the Cenvat credit for the six invoices was deemed admissible, while other demands were confirmed.

3. Regarding the penalty under Section 11AC, the Tribunal upheld it, citing the extended period due to suppression of facts, similar to the provisions of Section 11AC. The penalty could not be reduced or waived based on a precedent, and hence, the penalty was maintained. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, allowing the appeal in part. The judgment was pronounced on 27/9/17.