2013 (12) TMI 574 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit - Non-production of duty paying document - Credit taken on inputs after six months from the date of issue of invoice under Rule 57 G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 Held that - Assessee agrees that the credit stand taken in the absence of duty paying documents as also after a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the invoice Following SAIL V CCE, Raipur 2008 (4) TMI 94 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. V. CCE, Meerut 2000 (8) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI . Non-filing of declaration under Rule 57 G Credit taken on extra copy of Invoice - Non-Production of duplicate copy of invoice as per Rule 57 G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that - Following CCE, Chennai v. ITC Ltd. 2007 (11) TMI 188 - HIGH COURT MADRAS - The infirmity has been held to be of a nature so as not to result in denial of credit - denial of credit on the technical ground of non-production of duplicate copy of invoice could not result in denial of credit. Credit taken on non-specified duties - basic customs duty and special customs duty as per Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Excess Credit availed than that shown in the parent invoice - Credit taken on re-issued goods under Rule 173 H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 Held that - The appellant fairly agrees that the credit would not be available to them. Discrepancies in Dealer s Invoices - Non-mention of certain details such as manufacture s details and invoice no. Held that - Following Bajaj Tempo Ltd. V CCE, Pune 1998 (9) TMI 157 - CEGAT, MUMBAI - The credit was denied on the technical and procedural ground of non-availability of certain particulars in the dealers invoices - The defects pointed out by the Revenue are rectifiable defects and should not be made basis for denial of credit, if availability of same is otherwise not disputed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit based on various grounds including non-production of duty paying documents, late credit taken on inputs, non-filing of declaration, non-production of duplicate copy of invoice, credit taken on non-specified duties, excess credit availed, credit taken on re-issued goods, and discrepancies in dealer's invoices.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI were consolidated as they stemmed from the same impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned advocate presented a detailed chart outlining the items and reasons for the denial of Cenvat credit. The issues included non-production of duty paying documents, late credit taken on inputs, non-filing of declaration, non-production of duplicate copy of invoice, credit taken on non-specified duties, excess credit availed, credit taken on re-issued goods, and discrepancies in dealer's invoices.

Regarding the specific grounds for denial of credit, it was acknowledged that credit could not be availed in cases where duty paying documents were not produced or when credit was taken after the prescribed time limit. However, it was noted that denial of credit solely on technical grounds, such as non-filing of declaration or non-production of duplicate copies of invoices, should not result in the denial of credit if the duty paid nature and receipt of goods were not in dispute. The Tribunal found that certain grounds for denial, such as non-filing of declaration or non-production of duplicate copies of invoices, should not lead to denial of credit if the duty paid nature and receipt of goods were established.

The Tribunal also addressed the issues of credit taken on non-specified duties, excess credit availed, and credit taken on re-issued goods, noting that the credit would not be available in these instances. However, in cases where discrepancies in dealer's invoices were the basis for denial, the Tribunal held that if the duty paid nature and receipt of goods were not in dispute, rectifiable defects in the invoices should not be the sole reason for denying credit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed credit in some instances while denying it in others based on the specific grounds presented. The Tribunal decided to deny credit in cases related to non-production of duty paying documents, late credit taken on inputs, credit taken on non-specified duties, excess credit availed, and credit taken on re-issued goods. However, credit was allowed in cases where denial was based on technical or procedural grounds, such as non-filing of declaration or discrepancies in dealer's invoices. The Tribunal also decided not to impose a penalty on the appellant due to the genuine dispute regarding the availability of Cenvat credit.

This judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the various issues related to the denial and allowance of Cenvat credit based on specific grounds and technicalities, ensuring a fair and reasoned decision by the Appellate Tribunal.