2023 (8) TMI 655 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - denial of credit on the ground that address in the invoices is not mentioned of their Gamharia Unit and in the invoices, the address is mentioned of the Head Office - HELD THAT - The said issue has been dealt by the adjudicating authority in their own case for the subsequent period, wherein the adjudicating authority has observed Since, all the goods are covered by duty paying documents involved in Show Cause Notice which have been duly received in the premises of the assessee and has been accounted for under respective documents, where utilities manufacture of dutiable goods, hence the error in address mentioned in duty paying document only is technical in nature and therefore condonable. Further, it is an admitted fact that although the invoices were in the name of their Head Office, but the goods have been received in the factory at Gamharia Unit, which is registered with the Central Excise Department and the same has been used by the appellant for manufacture of their final product, which suffered duty. The appellant has correctly taken the cenvat credit on the impugned invoices - there are no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the denial of cenvat credit by the Revenue to the appellant based on the address mentioned in the invoices not matching the factory location, invoking extended period of limitation for issuing show-cause notice, and the contention regarding correct availing of cenvat credit by the appellant.

Extended period of limitation for show-cause notice:
The appellant challenged the sustainability of the show-cause notice, arguing that it was issued invoking an extended period of limitation. The appellant emphasized that all goods were received at their Gamharia factory, where manufacturing activities took place, despite the invoices mentioning addresses of other locations. The appellant cited various case laws to support their argument and pointed out a similar show-cause notice issued in the past which was dropped, indicating entitlement to cenvat credit.

Discrepancy in invoice addresses:
The main dispute centered around the fact that the invoices did not mention the address of the Gamharia Unit, leading to the denial of cenvat credit. However, the adjudicating authority in a similar case for a subsequent period acknowledged that the goods were received at the correct location despite the address discrepancy. The authority highlighted technical errors in the consignor's records and confirmed that the cenvat credit had been correctly availed and utilized for manufacturing. The authority also referred to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, to justify waiving minor technical infirmities.

Correct availing of cenvat credit:
The Tribunal noted that although the invoices bore the Head Office address, the goods were actually received and used at the Gamharia Unit, the registered factory location. The appellant had utilized the raw materials for manufacturing final products on which duty was paid. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant had rightfully availed the cenvat credit on the disputed invoices. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.