2018 (9) TMI 1199 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - Duplicate Copy of Invoice - Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - M/s. Bhuwania Associates Pvt. Ltd., have furnished the details of Bank Statement, payment particulars, gate register and statutory documents like JVAT certificate which show that the goods in question have been received in the appellant s factory and used by them in manufacture of their final products. It is imperative to note that the mistakes occurred on the part of the dealers which were inadvertently made by their accountant in the course of filing details in the Triplicate copy of the invoices - the appellant is eligible for availing Cenvat Credit on the basis of these invoices - credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - credit availed on the basis of Triplicate Copy of invoices - Held that - The dealer has accepted their fault of retaining the duplicate copy of invoices and sending the Triplicate Copy. However, all the invoices along with other documents were seized by the Department - credit allowed. Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 6,72,583/- - Held that - These invoices contained the details of the manufacturer (SAIL) and duty details. M/s. H. P. Exim Pvt. Ltd. is a registered dealer and the stock is duty paid. These purchases have been made against the old stock prior to registration - It is not the Revenue s case that the input were not duty paid or were not received by them or do not stand utilized in the manufacture of final products. As such, denial of credit on the basis of discrepancies, which are treated as technical, is neither justified nor warranted - credit allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Dispute over availing Cenvat Credit on the basis of invoices.
3. Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 128-131/RAN/2014.

Analysis:

1. The case involved disallowance of Cenvat Credit and penalty imposition under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed Cenvat Credit of ?28,19,809/- and imposed penalties. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by the appellants. The Revenue challenged this before the Tribunal, leading to a detailed analysis of the issues.

2. The first issue revolved around the Cenvat Credit amounting to ?5,37,235/- based on alleged fake invoices. The Ld. Consultant argued that the invoices were genuine, highlighting discrepancies in the copies. The Tribunal found that the alterations did not affect critical details, making the appellant eligible for the credit based on these invoices.

3. The second issue concerned Cenvat Credit of ?16,09,983/- based on Triplicate Copy of invoices. The dealer accepted the fault of sending Triplicate instead of Duplicate Copy. The Tribunal noted that all documents were seized by the Department, leading to a nuanced decision on the eligibility for credit based on these invoices.

4. The third issue dealt with Cenvat Credit of ?6,72,583/- for invoices against old stock purchased pre-registration. The Ld. Consultant argued for credit eligibility, citing the dealer's responsibility and reliance on relevant judgments. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the duty-paid nature of the stock and the absence of disputes regarding receipt and utilization of inputs.

5. The Tribunal referenced a relevant judgment to support its decision, highlighting that once payment of duty and input utilization were established, credit could not be denied solely based on technical discrepancies. This legal precedent reinforced the Tribunal's findings and led to the dismissal of the appeals.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The detailed analysis of each issue, supported by legal interpretations and precedents, formed the basis for the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a comprehensive review of the case before rendering the judgment.