2017 (6) TMI 899 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - in the invoices, the description of the goods is not as per purchase orders or the goods received by the appellants in their factory - Rule 7(1)(a) of CCR, 2004 - Held that - similar issue decided in the case of Omax Autos Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III 2011 (7) TMI 994 - CESTAT, New Delhi , where it was held that description of the goods different but the fact is not denied, the appellants received the goods, therefore, the appellants are entitled to take credit - CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit on inputs and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, faced denial of Cenvat Credit on inputs like H.R. Sheets due to discrepancies in the invoices, showing C.R. Sheets instead. The issue revolved around contravention of Rule 7(1)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The show cause notice led to the imposition of a penalty equivalent to the duty amount. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel cited a precedent involving Omax Autos Limited where a similar issue was addressed, and Cenvat Credit was allowed. The AR supported the impugned order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to the Omax Autos Limited case, highlighting that the description discrepancy in the invoices did not negate the actual receipt of H.R. Sheets by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized Rule 7(1)(a) requirements, stating that as long as the necessary details are present in the invoice, the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had received the goods in question and had not procured them clandestinely. Relying on the precedent's decision, the Tribunal held that the appellant rightfully availed the Cenvat Credit, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.