2017 (3) TMI 173 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - forged invoices - credit taken on components, spares and accessories without establishing connection to identifiable capital goods - Held that - denial of credit was erroneous as the duty paying documents were available on record - In view of the sketchy finding and conclusion by the original authority, and the appellant not being put to prejudice from the remand, no infirmity found thereon - matter remanded for consideration afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of credit taken on capital goods; validity of invoices; use of cancelled invoices for credit; connection of credit taken on components/spares/accessories to identifiable capital goods; imposition of penalty under section 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1999.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, four appeals by M/s IPCL challenging an order-in-appeal were disposed of. The appeals contested the disallowance of credit taken on capital goods between January 1998 and July 1999. The impugned order sought to recover specific amounts for different periods based on the non-validity of invoices, use of cancelled invoices for credit, and lack of connection between credit taken on components/spares/accessories and identifiable capital goods. The original authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalties under section 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1999.

The impugned order confirmed the denial of specific amounts of credit for being availed against invalid documents and cancelled invoices, while the remaining issues were remanded for reconsideration by the original authority. The appellant contended that the denial of credit for specific periods was erroneous as the procurement documents were valid and related to the appellant's factory. They also challenged the denial of credit for other periods, arguing that the credit was a restoration of debited amounts and that the impugned order did not appreciate the facts adequately.

Regarding the credit availed on components/spares/accessories without correlation to capital goods, the appellant argued that the Chartered Engineer's certificate was submitted before the original authority, although no finding was rendered on its veracity. The Tribunal noted the lack of a finding and upheld the remand on this issue. Challenges to the remand of other credit amounts were deemed unjustified due to the original authority's sketchy findings and the absence of prejudice to the appellant.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders entirely and remanded the matter back to the original authority for comprehensive reconsideration, taking into account the appellant's contentions and relevant judicial pronouncements. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.