2012 (11) TMI 731 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on capital goods - duty paying documents - denial as invoices do not bear the pre-printed sl. Nos. and goods was received at the manufacturing unit at Bhopal rather than Head Office - Held that - The goods covered under the invoices and the bills of entry were actually received at the appellant s factory at Bhopal and those goods were used for manufacture of capsule making machine. It is also undisputed that excise duty/ additional custom duty was paid on those goods which are subject matter of the invoices and bills of entry. As decided in CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Satyen Dyes 2001 (11) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI when the sl. no. on the invoices have been stamped by the franking machine or typed by typewriter it is sufficient compliance of the statutory requirement of Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rule and such invoices are valid document for modvat credit. When invoices clearly mentioned appellant factory Bhopal as the consignee that there is no justification for denial of modvat credit in relation to those goods. As decided in Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot 2005 (6) TMI 177 - CESTAT, MUMBAI that when bills of entry show the address of the head office while the goods sent to the factory of the assessee, cenvat credit would be admissible. Thus Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty is set aside - in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on invoices without pre-printed serial numbers.
2. Denial of cenvat credit on invoices with conflicting delivery information.
3. Denial of cenvat credit on bills of entry with different entity names.
4. Admissibility of cenvat credit based on goods receipt location.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of empty hard gelatine capsules, faced allegations of wrongly claiming cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 14,60,870 due to invoices lacking pre-printed serial numbers. The Assistant Commissioner upheld the denial, citing non-compliance with Rule 52A(6) of the Central Excise Rules. However, the appellant argued that stamped serial numbers on the invoices fulfilled the statutory requirement, referencing Tribunal decisions and a Board Circular supporting this stance. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the goods were received at the factory, thus overturning the denial of cenvat credit on these invoices.

2. Another issue involved the denial of cenvat credit on certain invoices due to conflicting delivery information. Despite the mention of the appellant's factory in Bhopal as the consignee, the invoices also indicated the Head Office as the first destination. The appellant contended that since the consignee was clearly the Bhopal factory, there was no basis for denial of cenvat credit. The Tribunal agreed, finding no justification for withholding credit based on this technical discrepancy.

3. The denial of cenvat credit on bills of entry, where the entity name differed from the receiving location, was also challenged. The department argued that since the bills were in the name of the Head Office but goods were received at the factory, cenvat credit was inadmissible. However, the Tribunal referenced a precedent where such discrepancies did not preclude credit eligibility if the goods were utilized in manufacturing. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the department's objection, emphasizing the actual use of the goods in the factory.

4. Lastly, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of the actual receipt and utilization of goods at the appellant's factory in Bhopal for manufacturing purposes. It highlighted that the payment of excise duty and additional custom duty on the goods, coupled with their use in manufacturing, warranted the allowance of cenvat credit. Based on these considerations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, including the demand for cenvat credit, interest, and penalty, ultimately allowing the appeal.

← Previous Next →