2016 (6) TMI 758 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit grant - duty paying document - existence of the name of the corporate office instead of factory - Held that - The proposition of learned counsel appears to be truthful when the adjudication order and show cause notice is perused. The condition of CENVAT credit grant being fulfilled with the receipt of the input in the factory of the appellant and consumed thereat, the technical defect of existence of the name of the corporate office on the invoice does not make any difference. But, it is left to Department to cause enquiry as to whether basing such invoice the corporate office or any other plant of the appellant has taken credit doubly. In case they find any such wrong claim they are at liberty to initiate proceeding as that may be permitted by law.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of CENVAT credit based on the location of receipt and consumption of goods, dispute regarding the name on the invoices, need for Department to conduct further inquiry.

Analysis:

1. Grant of CENVAT Credit: The appellant argued that despite the invoices showing the corporate office as the buyer, the goods were actually utilized by the appellant manufacturer at the same location in Coimbatore. The Department did not dispute this consumption. The Tribunal noted that when goods are received and consumed at the same place, it satisfies the condition for CENVAT credit. Therefore, the adjudication failed to establish any demand for duty, penalty, or interest.

2. Dispute over Invoices: The Revenue supported the adjudication, but the Tribunal found the appellant's argument to be valid upon reviewing the records. The presence of the corporate office's name on the invoice did not affect the eligibility for CENVAT credit since the goods were consumed at the appellant's factory. However, the Department was advised to investigate whether the corporate office or any other plant of the appellant had wrongly claimed credit based on the same invoices. Any such incorrect claim would warrant further legal action.

3. Need for Further Inquiry: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the technical flaw of the corporate office's name on the invoices did not impact the eligibility for CENVAT credit. The Department was granted the authority to conduct an inquiry to verify if any double claiming of credit had occurred based on the invoices. If such discrepancies were found, the Department was permitted to initiate appropriate legal proceedings as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of the location of receipt and consumption of goods for CENVAT credit eligibility. The judgment emphasized the need for the Department to investigate potential double claiming of credit and take necessary legal actions if discrepancies were discovered.