2018 (7) TMI 1264 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - supplementary invoices - Held that - There is no element of fraud and suppression on the part of the appellant. The issue herein is recurring in nature - the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit on the supplementary invoices in question - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Objection by Revenue on taking cenvat credit on supplementary invoices for coal supply
- Validity of taking cenvat credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR 2004
- Disallowance of cenvat credit by adjudicating authority
- Interpretation of assessable value and inclusion of additional charges
- Admissibility of cenvat credit in light of pending Supreme Court case
- Allegations of fraud and suppression by Revenue

Analysis:

The judgment addressed the issue concerning the objection raised by Revenue against the appellant's claim of cenvat credit on supplementary invoices for coal supply. The appellant, engaged in cement manufacturing, availed cenvat credit on inputs, including coal. The Revenue contended that the supplementary invoices did not qualify as valid documents for cenvat credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority disallowed the cenvat credit, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent proceedings.

Another show cause notice was issued by Revenue, emphasizing that the appellant was not entitled to cenvat credit due to the supplier's alleged non-inclusion of certain charges in the original invoices. The appellant argued that the issue of including such charges in the assessable value was sub judice before the Supreme Court, making the denial of cenvat credit on grounds of fraud and suppression untenable. The Revenue's counsel reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the proceedings.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal referred to a connected matter involving South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and noted the absence of fraud or suppression by the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted the recurring nature of the issue and allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was entitled to take cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices in question. The judgment granted consequential relief to the appellant, emphasizing the absence of fraudulent intent and the importance of awaiting a final verdict from the Supreme Court on similar matters.