2018 (5) TMI 1118 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - whether the appellant is entitled for CENVAT Credit on the strength of invoice issued by an importer, who is registered as first stage dealer? - N/N. 30/2016-CE dated 15.8.2016 - Held that - the first stage dealer includes the importer who sells the goods imported by him under the cover of invoice on which CENVAT Credit has been taken - In the present case, the importer who is registered as first stage dealer issued the invoice, therefore, the importer is undoubtedly covered in the terms first stage dealer . Therefore, the invoices issued by first stage dealer in respect of indigenous goods or imported goods, the invoice issued by such first stage dealer is valid document for availing the CENVAT Credit. As regards the N/N. 30/2016-CE (NT), this is not an amendment notification, however, the same is a clarification issued for the reason that this notification was not given effect to amendment under the Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 - it cannot be interpreted that only on or after the date of 28.6.2016 this clarificatory notification was issued, the first stage dealer was not entitled to issue a cenvatable invoice in respect of imported goods - the invoice issued by the first stage dealer in respect of the imported goods is clearly a valid document in terms of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for availing the CENVAT Credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement of CENVAT Credit based on invoice issued by an importer registered as a first stage dealer.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case was whether the appellant could claim CENVAT Credit based on an invoice issued by an importer registered as a first stage dealer. The department argued that the supplier, being an importer, should have been separately registered as an importer, making the invoices issued as a first stage dealer invalid. This contention was based on Notification No. 30/2016-CE, which did not provide for separate registration for importers if they were registered as first stage dealers. The Revenue claimed that prior to this notification, importers had to be separately registered to issue cenvatable invoices. The appellant, however, argued that the notification was a clarification and not an amendment, with retrospective effect. They cited a previous Tribunal judgment supporting their stance.

The Tribunal analyzed the relevant period's definition of a first stage dealer, which included importers selling goods under cenvatable invoices. As the importer in this case was registered as a first stage dealer and issued the invoice, they fell under the definition of a first stage dealer. Therefore, the invoices issued by such a first stage dealer for indigenous or imported goods were deemed valid for claiming CENVAT Credit. Regarding Notification No. 30/2016-CE, the Tribunal concluded that it was a clarification and not an amendment, with retrospective effect. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal held that no double registration was required for a dealer selling imported goods under cenvatable invoices. Consequently, the Tribunal overturned the impugned order, allowing the appeal and confirming the validity of the invoice issued by the first stage dealer for imported goods under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized that the appellant was entitled to claim CENVAT Credit based on the invoice issued by the importer registered as a first stage dealer, as per the relevant rules and clarifications.