2024 (4) TMI 1087 - AT - Central Excise

Irregular availment CENVAT Credit - ineligible documents - supplementary invoice/debit notes issued by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. (TSL) - violation of provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 during the impugned periods - HELD THAT - Although the appellant has produced all the documents it is the finding of the authorities below that they could not correlate the documents for availment of CENVAT Credit on the strength of debit notes issued by M/s. Tata Steel Limited. In these circumstances it would be in the interests of justice to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to the adjudicating authority to sit with the representative of the appellant for correlation of the debit notes along with invoices with the certificate issued by M/s. Tata Steel Limited showing that debit notes have been issued to the appellant on the strength of which the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit. Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents only. The appellant is also directed to approach the adjudicating authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order who shall sit with the representative of the appellant for correlation. The appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Allegations of irregular availment of CENVAT Credit based on supplementary invoices/debit notes.
- Validity of documents issued by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. for availing CENVAT Credit.
- Confirmation of recovery of irregularly availed CENVAT Credit, interest, and penalty.
- Appellant's grounds of appeal challenging lower authorities' decisions.

Summary:
The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing TMT bars and rods, faced Show Cause Notices for irregular CENVAT Credit availment based on documents from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. The Department alleged these documents did not meet requirements, leading to recovery orders. Appellant claimed the documents were valid for credit, citing price variation reasons. Lower authorities upheld demands, prompting the appeals.

Appellant's grounds included errors in ignoring Tribunal directions, verification reports, and certificates from Tata Steel. They argued the documents contained necessary details for CENVAT Credit, contrary to lower authorities' findings. They also highlighted discrepancies in the verification process and judicial precedents not followed.

The Tribunal noted past decisions favoring the Appellant and reviewed the impugned orders, emphasizing the need for correlating original invoices with debit notes. Due to the inability to establish this correlation, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and past precedents.

The appeals were disposed of by remand, with directions for further verification and decision-making in alignment with legal provisions and Tribunal decisions.