2016 (12) TMI 650 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - improper documents - Held that - As per the provisions of Rule 9 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacturer of input/input service. Admittedly the appellant availed the Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacturer of inputs. In that circumstances, the provisions of Rule 9 (1) (e) (f) (g) are not applicable to the facts of the case, therefore, I hold that appellant has not contravene the provision of Rule 9 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availment of Cenvat credit on the strength of invoice issued by the manufacturer. In fact the impugned proceedings were not warranted against the appellant. In that circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable. Consequently, the same is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit based on improper document.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the order denying Cenvat credit due to an alleged improper document. The appellant had availed Cenvat credit based on invoices issued by the manufacturer of inputs. However, during an audit, it was objected that the appellant did not produce necessary documents like challan, invoice, or bill of challan issued by the provider of input service or input service distributor as required by Rule 9 (1) (e), (f), and (g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently, Cenvat credit was denied, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant argued that as per Rule 9 (1) (a) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they were entitled to avail Cenvat credit based on invoices issued by the manufacturer. The appellant contended that they had correctly availed the credit and should not have faced proceedings. The appellant claimed that the impugned order should be set aside as they had complied with the relevant provisions.

On the other hand, the authorized representative supported the impugned order denying Cenvat credit to the appellant. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, the judge examined Rule 9 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The rule specifies the documents based on which Cenvat credit can be claimed by the manufacturer or service provider. The judge concluded that the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacturer of inputs, as per the provisions of Rule 9 (1). Since the appellant had followed this rule, the judge found that the provisions of Rule 9 (1) (e) (f) (g) were not applicable in this case. Therefore, the judge held that the appellant had not contravened the rules for availing Cenvat credit based on the manufacturer's invoice. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.