2019 (4) TMI 1142 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs which were alleged to have not been received in their factory under cover of any specified documents - HELD THAT - The appellant had availed credit based on the invoices issued by their supplier, but registration number mentioned in the invoices was that of their registered dealer premises - Dealer s Registration number was wrongly incorporated by the supplier to the appellant and inadvertently, they had availed credit on the basis of such invoices, where the main address was mentioned as that of the appellant, but instead of their manufacturing premises, registration number was that of their registered dealer s premises. The Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant, should not be denied, merely because there was some typographical error on the part of the manufacturer-supplier in mentioning the registration number on the invoices issued by the manufacturer/supplier - the mistakes were admitted and rectified by the said manufacturer/supplier. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Cenvat credit availed on inputs with discrepancies in registration numbers mentioned in invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing T.C.Tips Insert Tool Holder and T.C.Tools, faced allegations of inadmissible cenvat credit on inputs due to discrepancies in registration numbers on invoices. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed credit amounting to ?22,55,526 along with interest and imposed a penalty under relevant rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

The consultant for the appellant submitted a Certificate from a Chartered Accountant, arguing that the registration number discrepancy was due to the manufacturer-supplier's error. The appellant's manufacturing unit issued purchase orders for specific materials, which were wrongly invoiced with the dealer's registration number. The appellant rectified the issue with the supplier, who acknowledged and corrected the mistake.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the appellant availed credit based on supplier invoices with incorrect registration numbers. However, the goods were received, duty paid, accounted for, and used in manufacturing final products by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the typographical error in the invoices did not warrant denying cenvat credit, especially since the supplier rectified the mistake and the goods were legitimately used in production.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasized that the inadvertent error in registration numbers on invoices did not invalidate the legitimate use of materials in manufacturing processes.