2008 (1) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Credit denied on the ground that the dealer who has issued the invoices was not a registered - Comm (A) after detailed examination found that the invoices issued contained the particulars specified in Not.15/94; that the registration of dealers came into force only w.e.f. 4.7.94 and even if the impugned invoices were raised prior to that date, the registration can be accepted credit rightly allowed by comm..(A) - no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against denial of cenvat credit due to invoices issued by an unregistered dealer.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore arose from an Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner decided in favor of the assessee by setting aside the Order-in-Original that denied cenvat credit based on invoices issued by an unregistered dealer. The Commissioner found that the invoices contained the required particulars specified in Notification No.15/94-CE (NT) and that the registration of dealers came into force after the invoices were raised. The Commissioner also noted the applicability of Notification No.64/94 CE to the case. The issue to be decided was the legality of denying the credit and imposing the penalty. The show cause notice primarily focused on the denial of credit due to the unregistered dealer issuing the invoices. The appellant provided a detailed reply outlining the requirements for availing credit during the material period and the eligibility of the impugned invoices as per Notification No. 64/94-C.E. The moot point raised was the registration status of the supplier upstream, not the compliance of the impugned goods with duty requirements. The Commissioner's order was found unsustainable as it did not address crucial aspects raised by the appellant. The Tribunal's ruling in a similar case was cited to support the admissibility of the impugned credits.

The Tribunal thoroughly analyzed the facts, rules, and notifications involved in the case. The Commissioner's decision to uphold the assessee's contention for availing cenvat credit was found to be correct. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner correctly applied the provisions of law and the ratio of the judgment cited in the order. As there was no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal against the denial of cenvat credit was rejected. The impugned order was set aside entirely, and the appeal was allowed.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the denial of cenvat credit based on invoices issued by an unregistered dealer, the examination of relevant notifications and rules, and the application of judicial precedents to determine the admissibility of the credits.