2018 (6) TMI 1246 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - credit availed on the basis of the invoices only issued by the registered dealer without actually receiving the inputs - the entire case of the revenue is based upon the sole fact that the goods/ inputs were described in the dealer s invoice as polythene film whereas the same was mentioned in the appellants material receipt advice as HDPE cloth - Held that - Admittedly, the appellants final products are cleared in packed condition either in HDPE cloth or in polythene film. The appellants by producing invoices for earlier periods have established that their final product was being packed in cloth prior to the period in question. The revenue has not advanced any evidence of purchase of HDPE cloth during the relevant period so as to establish that it was cloth which was being used for packing even subsequent to 2008 - Admittedly, the appellants were also entitled to credit in respect of HDPE cloth and as such there could be no malafide motive on their part to receive the cloth in the guise of polythene film. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Cenvat credit availed based on invoices without actual receipt of inputs, discrepancy in goods description between invoices and material receipt advice, denial of credit and imposition of penalties, appeal against the original adjudicating authority's decision.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where the appellant, engaged in manufacturing PVC products, availed Cenvat credit based on invoices from a registered dealer without actual receipt of inputs. The revenue contended that the appellant received polythene films but mentioned them as HDPE cloth in their records. Further investigations revealed that the dealer received polythene bags from a manufacturer, cut them into sheets, and provided them to the appellant under Central Excise invoices, with discrepancies in vehicle numbers on some invoices.

During adjudication, the appellant argued that they received all inputs covered by the dealer's invoices, made payments via cheque, and used the goods for packing, supported by customer affidavits. They explained the HDPE cloth entry as a clerical error due to prior use of cloth for packing. The original adjudicating authority upheld the demand for Cenvat credit denial and penalties on both the appellant and the dealer, a decision affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeals.

The appellate tribunal analyzed the case, emphasizing the discrepancy in goods description as the revenue's primary argument. The appellant clarified the clerical error and provided invoices from earlier periods to show previous use of HDPE cloth for packing. The tribunal noted the lack of evidence of HDPE cloth purchase during the relevant period and the absence of details on alternative packing material sources. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed both appeals, overturning the denial of credit and penalties. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with evidence, addressing discrepancies, and considering the context of past practices in determining credit eligibility. The decision focused on the factual and procedural aspects of the case, ultimately providing relief to the appellant based on the presented arguments and supporting documentation.