2018 (3) TMI 1477 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - time limitation - Held that - the Revenue had not disputed the fact that the Assessee s name was shown as Consignee in the Invoices - also, the Revenue had not challenged the Order on limitation - credit rightly allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of Cenvat Credit, challenge on limitation and merit, interpretation of Rule 9(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, consideration of valid documents for credit, extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1).

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 06.05.2016, which disallowed Cenvat Credit of a specific amount along with interest and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order on limitation and merit. The Revenue challenged the impugned Order on merits, alleging wrongful availment of credit on Dealers Invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals' findings stated that the invoices, where the appellant's name was shown as consignee, were not invalid documents for taking Cenvat credit. The appellant raised the issue of limitation, arguing that the case was time-barred, and the show-cause notice issued was beyond the limitation period. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the case did not meet the criteria for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1). The Revenue did not dispute that the Assessee's name was shown as Consignee in the Invoices, and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision on limitation was upheld. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the case was disposed of accordingly on 11.12.2017.