2013 (10) TMI 266 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit Waiver of Pre-deposit - Whether CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the basis of debit note issued in favour of a person other than the appellant is eligible or otherwise Held that - There were some procedural irregularities with respect to Cenvatable documents - Prevailing Central Excise law makes the provisions that if there was a procedural lapse and the defects in the documents are rectifiable, the same may be got done - It is also an established law that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied merely on the basis of certain procedural lapses when the duty paid nature and its receipt in the factory and utilization in the manufacturing activity are not disputed Appellant has made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of the confirmed dues and penalties Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Whether CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the basis of a debit note issued in favor of a person other than the appellant is eligible or not.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that the credit taking document was not properly endorsed initially, but necessary corrections were made later, making the credit admissible. The appellant contended that any rectifiable damage was addressed, justifying the eligibility for CENVAT Credit. The original adjudicating authority was informed about these corrections as per the reply to the show cause notice. The appellant emphasized that the procedural irregularities were rectified, and thus, the credit should not be denied.

The Revenue, represented by the Addl. Commissioner, supported the stance of the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, noted that while there were procedural irregularities in the Cenvatable documents, these lapses were rectifiable under the prevailing Central Excise law. The Tribunal highlighted that CENVAT Credit cannot be refused solely based on procedural lapses if the duty payment nature and the utilization in manufacturing activities are not in question.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the appellant had established a prima facie case for a complete waiver of the confirmed dues and penalties. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered a stay on the recovery of the confirmed dues and penalties until the appeal is disposed of. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Mr. H.K. Thakur, the presiding judge of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.