2012 (7) TMI 53 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that invoice number was handwritten or rubber stamped but not printed Held that - There is no requirement in the rules that the invoice number should be printed on the invoice. The only requirement is that invoice should be serially numbered - appellant have fulfilled the requirement of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, they are entitled to avail input credit on the strength of the invoices in question In favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Denial of input credit due to handwritten or rubber-stamped invoice numbers.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the denial of input credit based on the format of invoice numbers in the impugned orders. The issue revolved around the requirement of printed invoice numbers as opposed to handwritten or rubber-stamped numbers. The lower authorities had confirmed the demands, leading the appellants to file appeals before the tribunal.

Legal Analysis:
During the proceedings, the appellant's counsel argued that as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, there is no explicit mandate for the invoice numbers to be printed. The counsel contended that the only stipulation is that the invoice should be serially numbered, which the invoices in question complied with. Therefore, the impugned orders were urged to be set aside based on the rules governing CENVAT Credit.

Rule Interpretation:
The presiding judge examined Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which outlines the conditions for taking CENVAT credit based on invoices issued by the manufacturer. It was noted that Rule 9(2) specifies that no credit shall be availed unless all prescribed particulars are present in the documents. Additionally, Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 mandates that credit can be claimed on the basis of serially numbered invoices. The judge emphasized that the rules do not explicitly require the invoice numbers to be printed, as long as they are serially numbered.

Judgment:
After a thorough review of the relevant rules and considering the arguments presented, the judge concluded that the appellants had met the requirements of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief deemed appropriate. This decision highlights the significance of compliance with the specific provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules rather than a strict insistence on printed invoice numbers.