2018 (2) TMI 536 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - credit was alleged to have been wrongly availed against endorsed documents that were not originally issued to the appellant - Held that - the first appellate authority had failed to consider the extracts of the invoice register and the sample copies of the invoices - It is necessary that the documents furnished by the appellant would need to be examined - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of CENVAT credit | Alleged wrongful availing of credit | Interest and penalty imposition | Failure to consider evidence | Interpretation of endorsed documents | Applicability of legal precedents | Remand for fresh decision

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, M/s SP Fabricators Pvt Ltd, being proceeded against for the recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to ?35,16,607, which was alleged to have been wrongly availed against endorsed documents not originally issued to them. Additionally, a penalty of ?17,58,304 under rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with interest, was imposed and confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II.

During the hearing, the appellant contended that the receipt of goods and payment for them between April 2010 and March 2012 was undisputed. They claimed that the goods were transferred to them with duly endorsed invoices, certifying that the transferor had not availed duty credit on those goods. The appellant argued that the first appellate authority failed to consider the extracts of the invoice register and sample copies of invoices. They relied on legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Marmagoa Steel Ltd v. Union of India, which emphasized that the credit of duty cannot be denied solely on the ground of missing endorsement on the bill of entry.

Furthermore, reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Darshan Industries v. Union of India, which supported the appellant's position regarding the entitlement to claim credit based on endorsed invoices. Considering these legal precedents, the Tribunal found it necessary to examine the documents provided by the appellant in light of the judgments cited. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of legal precedents in interpreting the endorsed documents and determining the eligibility for CENVAT credit.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues of recovery of CENVAT credit, the interpretation of endorsed documents, the failure to consider evidence, and the applicability of legal precedents in the decision-making process. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh decision underscores the significance of a thorough examination of documents in line with established legal principles.