2019 (2) TMI 1022 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - invoices where serial number was hand-written - period from June, 2009 to November, 2009 - Held that - The present issue is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of A.A.Trailers 2018 (2) TMI 124 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that in the absence of any statutory provision, the credit cannot be denied on this count. Also, there is no dispute regarding receipt of the inputs in the factory of manufacture and there is also no dispute of Central Excise duty, which has been paid on the inputs - credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing cenvat credit on the basis of handwritten serial numbers and duplicate/photo copies of invoices.
2. Barred by limitation - period of dispute and issuance of show-cause notice.
3. Statutory provision mandating pre-printing of serial numbers on invoices.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of induction heating equipments, availed cenvat credit based on invoices with handwritten serial numbers and duplicate/photo copies. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand for Central Excise duty, interest, and penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that invoices with handwritten serial numbers are acceptable, citing a Tribunal decision and claiming the demand is time-barred.

2. The appellant contended that the demand is time-barred as the period of dispute was January 2010, while the show-cause notice was issued in November 2011. This limitation issue was crucial in the appeal, with the appellant asserting that the demand should be considered barred by limitation due to the delay in issuing the notice after the period of dispute.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the requirement of pre-printing serial numbers on invoices, referring to a decision where it was established that there is no statutory provision mandating pre-printing of serial numbers. The Tribunal emphasized that departmental instructions, like the Central Excise Manual, cannot be the basis for denying credit when there is no statutory provision. As there was no dispute regarding the receipt of inputs or payment of Central Excise duty, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of statutory provisions, the timeliness of issuing show-cause notices, and the interpretation of departmental instructions in determining the validity of availing cenvat credit based on invoices with handwritten serial numbers and duplicate/photo copies.