2009 (10) TMI 319 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit- Demands of Rs. 2,12,336/-, Rs. 32,990/- and Rs. 88,703/- have been made on the grounds that debit entry has not been specifically mentioned in the invoices and product description not mentioned and only part No. mentioned. These demands are not justified for the reasons given in the order passed today on the appeals mentioned above by the same party and therefore, the demand in this regard is also set aside. Held that- It is not disputed that each consignment of furnace oil has been received under the cover of a challan and merely because, a combined invoice was received for several consignments as a matter of expediency, there is no reason to doubt the duty paid nature of the consignments and genuineness of the invoices issued by M/s. HPCL indicating the duty payment particulars and therefore the denial of credit is not justified. The demand in this regard is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-imposed is not justified and the same is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order confirming demand, denial of input credit, disallowance of furnace oil credit, imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal was made against an order confirming a demand of Rs. 15,56,775/- along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant did not contest certain demands totaling Rs. 18,482/-. An amount of Rs. 4,47,896/- related to inputs supplied by a specific company was denied pending investigation. The Tribunal mentioned that the demand was not sustainable based on reasons given in a previous order. Credits denied on various items were also discussed, and demands of Rs. 2,12,336/-, Rs. 32,990/-, and Rs. 88,703/- were set aside for specific reasons provided in the order.

Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 5,33,416/- in respect of furnace oil received from a dealer, the Commissioner held that a consolidated invoice for several consignments was not acceptable. However, the Tribunal found that each consignment was received under individual challans, and the consolidated invoice was for expediency. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to doubt the duty paid nature of the consignments, and the denial of credit was not justified. Therefore, the demand in this regard was set aside. Additionally, the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed was deemed unjustified and set aside.

In summary, the Tribunal addressed various issues raised in the appeal, including the denial of input credit and disallowance of furnace oil credit. The Tribunal set aside certain demands based on specific reasons provided in the order and concluded that the penalty imposed was not justified. The decision was made after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, ensuring a fair and thorough analysis of the legal aspects involved.