2019 (2) TMI 1350 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - case of the department is that since the supplier importer was registered as a first stage dealer but not registered as importer for issuing invoice, the invoice issued by him is invalid document - Held that - Though the invoice was issued by importer not as a registered importer for issuing the invoice but he issued the invoice as a first stage dealer, the first stage dealer registration is also under Rule 9 and which was in force at the time of issuing the invoice, therefore, the invoice issued by an importer even in the capacity of first stage dealer, it cannot held invalid particularly for the reason that the first stage dealer inovice also contain all the information such as duty payment particulars, importers bill of entry etc. Receipt of inputs and used thereof also not in dispute, therefore merely for procedural lapse, substantial benefit of cenvat credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Availment of cenvat credit based on invoices issued by an importer registered as a first stage dealer under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed cenvat credit based on invoices issued by an importer registered as a first stage dealer. The department contended that since the supplier importer was not registered as an importer for issuing invoices, the cenvat credit was not admissible.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the importer was registered under Rule 9 as a first stage dealer, making the invoice valid. Any procedural lapses should not result in credit denial. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument.

3. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, upheld the impugned order, emphasizing the post-amendment requirement for importers to register specifically for issuing cenvatable invoices.

4. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and reviewed the records. It noted that the invoice was issued by the importer as a first stage dealer, with all necessary information included. The duty payment, receipt of inputs, and their usage were not in dispute. Despite procedural lapses, the substantial benefit of cenvat credit could not be denied.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the cenvat credit taken based on the first stage dealer invoice, even if issued by the importer, was admissible. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.