2018 (11) TMI 902 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Duty paying documents - denial of credit on the ground that the invoice was not in the name of the appellant - Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 - Held that - To avail a cenvat credit, the manufacturer or the provider of the output/input service, as the case may be, has to produce the documents as mentioned in sub-rule (1) (a) of the said Rule. The invoice No.1511 dated 18.06.2012 is such admitted document (the original one). Perusal thereof shows that it has all such details as were required to be submitted in compliance of the above said Rule, 9 of CCR except that the name of the appellant as the consignee was not mentioned and it was M/s. Tirupati Proteins Pvt. Ltd. who only was mentioned in the invoice as buyer. Even if, the Department s case for said invoice to have no inadvertent mistake in the invoice is concerned, the only difference it makes is that instead of appellant, M/s. Tirupati Proteins Pvt. Ltd. would have been entitled for availing the said credit i.e. there is no case to deny the availment or utilisation of Cenvat Credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit based on invoice details.
2. Allegation of wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat Credit.
3. Compliance with Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Departmental audit findings and subsequent show cause notice.
5. Commissioner's order confirming the demand and reducing the penalty.
6. Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the Commissioner's order.

Issue 1: Admissibility of Cenvat Credit based on invoice details
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing products and availing Cenvat Credit, faced a challenge regarding the admissibility of credit due to an invoice discrepancy. The original invoice did not mention the appellant as the consignee, leading to a demand for recovery of the availed amount. The appellant argued that the mistake was clerical and promptly rectified, supported by correspondence with the concerned parties and the Department.

Issue 2: Allegation of wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat Credit
The Department alleged that the appellant wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat Credit based on an invoice issued by a third party. The appellant contended that the mistake was inadvertent, promptly rectified, and the corrected invoice acknowledged by the Department. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the necessity of producing required documents to avail credit, and concluded that the appellant was entitled to the credit despite the clerical error.

Issue 3: Compliance with Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
The Tribunal scrutinized Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the essential documents needed to claim credit. Despite the clerical error in the invoice, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant fulfilled the requirements for credit availment, and the Department's insistence on denial was unjustified.

Issue 4: Departmental audit findings and subsequent show cause notice
The Department conducted an audit, leading to a report alleging inadmissible Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant. A show cause notice was issued, followed by an Order-in-Original confirming the demand. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner, who upheld the demand but reduced the penalty. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Appellate Tribunal seeking relief.

Issue 5: Commissioner's order confirming the demand and reducing the penalty
The Commissioner affirmed the demand for recovery of Cenvat Credit but reduced the penalty imposed. Despite the appellant's submissions and evidence of rectification, the Commissioner upheld the decision based on Rule 9 compliance, disregarding the Department's verification and acknowledgment of the rectified invoice.

Issue 6: Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the Commissioner's order
The Tribunal reviewed the entire case, including correspondence, audit findings, and legal provisions. It criticized the Commissioner for ignoring crucial evidence, such as the Department's acknowledgment of the rectified invoice. The Tribunal emphasized the need for unbiased judgments and adherence to legal procedures, ultimately setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appellant's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the application of relevant rules, and the Tribunal's final decision in favor of the appellant.