2014 (3) TMI 874 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Modvat credit - vehicle nos. mentioned in the invoices issued by TISCO are registered as scooters, tractors and motorcycles which were not capable to transport quantum of such huge scrap shown in the respective invoice - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside demand - Held that - there is no dispute about the correctness of the invoices issued by TISCO for their stockyard. Further the invoices issued by the dealers showing movement of the goods from their place to the respondent are also not being disputed. The only dispute is about the correct vehicle nos. mentioned in the invoices issued by TISCO. Revenue has also not disputed about receipt of the inputs of the appellant. In the absence of any allegation as regards the invoices issued by the dealers showing movement of the inputs from his place to the assessee s factory, I am of the view that the discrepancy, if any, in the invoices issued by the TISCO stockyard will not result in denial of credit to the respondents - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit to the respondents.
2. Dispute regarding the correctness of vehicle numbers in the invoices.
3. Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) by the Revenue.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit
The respondents, engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots, availed Modvat credit based on invoices from registered dealers. The Revenue initiated proceedings alleging that the dealers did not receive the inputs due to discrepancies in vehicle numbers on TISCO invoices. The original adjudicating authority ruled in favor of the assessee, stating they took reasonable steps to ensure receipt of duty-paid goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting the inputs were received, entered in registers, and used in manufacturing final products. Lack of evidence from the department to dispute this position led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Dispute over vehicle numbers
The crux of the dispute revolved around the correctness of vehicle numbers in TISCO invoices. While the Revenue contested this discrepancy, it did not challenge the receipt of inputs by the appellant. The Tribunal found no issue with the invoices from TISCO's stockyard or the dealers showing the movement of goods to the respondents. The disagreement over vehicle numbers did not warrant denial of credit, as there was no dispute regarding the movement of inputs to the appellant's factory. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the lack of infirmity in the previous ruling.

Issue 3: Appeal by the Revenue
The Revenue, dissatisfied with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, further appealed to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal, after considering the facts and lack of dispute on crucial points, rejected the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of focusing on the actual receipt and usage of inputs rather than minor discrepancies in documentation, ultimately affirming the lower authorities' decisions.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the meticulous consideration of facts, legal provisions, and evidentiary support leading to the final decision in favor of the respondents.