2023 (6) TMI 537 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - denial on the premises that the appellant is not entitled to take the cenvat credit on the invoices issued by the second stage dealer, where the appellant is not a buyer and is only a consignor - HELD THAT - The present issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S. S.S. ENGINEERING WORKS VERSUS COMMR. OF CGST CX, KOLKATA SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE 2023 (3) TMI 1370 - CESTAT KOLKATA , wherein this Tribunal has observed that just because the invoices issued by M/s. SC Enviro Agro India Pvt. Ltd. mention M/s. Sumitomo Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. as the customer, while at the same time mentioning the appellant as the consignee, will not become invalid document for taking Cenvat credit, we therefore, hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. The CENVAT Credit allowed to the appellant - there are no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside.

Summary

Issues involved:
The denial of cenvat credit to the appellant based on the premise that they are not entitled to take credit on invoices issued by a second stage dealer where the appellant is a consignor.

Summary:

Issue 1: Denial of cenvat credit based on appellant's status as a consignor
The appellant appealed against the denial of cenvat credit, contending that they are entitled to the credit even though they are a consignor and not the buyer. The appellant procured inputs from Shree Parasnath Rerolling Mills Ltd. through a second stage dealer, Roshsanlal Bhagirathmal, and took credit on the goods. The Revenue argued that the buyer, Bansal Industrial Corporation, should be entitled to the credit as the second stage dealer sold the goods to them. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that the appellant, as the consignee, is eligible for the cenvat credit based on the invoices issued by the second stage dealer, following a similar precedent where the Tribunal allowed the credit in a comparable situation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the cenvat credit to the appellant and set aside the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to claim the cenvat credit despite being a consignor, based on the precedent set in a previous case with similar circumstances.