2018 (5) TMI 1504 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - it was alleged that appellants have irregularly availed input cenvat credit on invoices / Bills of Entry not addressed to them or consigned to them - Held that - the invoices have been addressed to their old address but the appellant has submitted that they have shifted the factory from the old address to the new address and some of the inputs were sent to the job worker which is a separate legal entity - further, the documents which have been produced by the appellants have not been considered by both the authorities below and the appellant submits that they do not have any objection in submitting their records for verification once again to ascertain the veracity of their claim that the inputs were duly received and accounted in their books of accounts - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Irregular availing of CENVAT credit on invoices not addressed to or consigned to the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order confirming a demand for irregularly availed CENVAT credit. The original authority had confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). The appellant argued that necessary documents proving receipt of goods were available, payments to suppliers were made through proper channels, and goods were received at the factory. The appellant also cited precedents where credit was not denied for procedural infractions.

The appellant contended that the impugned order was based on assumptions and failed to consider crucial documents proving receipt and usage of goods. They argued that the old address on invoices was due to the IEC code containing the old address, and they had proof of receiving and using the inputs. The appellant requested re-verification of records, which was not done. They emphasized the correlation between input suppliers, invoices, and final products, supported by a correlation chart. The appellant offered to produce evidence to verify material receipt and usage.

The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order, highlighting the absence of goods received notes or raw material registers to verify material receipt and usage. After considering submissions, the Tribunal identified the key issue of whether raw material was received and used by the appellant, despite invoices bearing an old address. The Tribunal noted the appellant's submission of statements and documents correlating input purchase with final product manufacture, which were not considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority for re-examination of all records produced by the appellant to determine the veracity of their claim.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding it to the original authority for a reasoned decision after verifying the appellant's documents. The remand was directed to ensure compliance with natural justice principles and provide the appellant with an opportunity to present supporting documents.