2018 (2) TMI 392 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - consignment received from the First Stage/ Second Stage dealers - it was alleged that the invoices issued by the First Stage/ Second Stage dealers do not indicate the details of entries made in RG-23D and as per the Provisions of Rule 9(3) of the CCR 2004 - Held that - the First Stage/ Second Stage dealer has to maintain records indicating the facts where inputs or capital goods was supplied from the stock. Except few invoices, wherein the declaration is not filed, it could have been verified by the Revenue from the concerned Jurisdictional authorities - the legitimate claim of the appellant for availment of cenvat credit cannot be denied for simple reasons that the First Stage/ Second Stage dealer has not filled up the columns correctly - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of cenvat credit due to incomplete details in invoices from First Stage/Second Stage dealers.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the denial of cenvat credit to the appellant concerning consignments received from First Stage/Second Stage dealers. The issue revolves around the allegation that the invoices from these dealers did not contain the necessary details as per Rule 9(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's counsel argued that the invoices in question did contain all required particulars, and the consideration along with excise duties were duly settled with the dealers. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that Rule 8 must be adhered to by the appellant, emphasizing the requirement for a declaration by the dealers regarding maintaining records for duty-paid stock. Some disputed invoices were presented as evidence, showing blank declarations, leading to the argument that the appellant should have ensured completeness before availing credit.

Upon reviewing submissions and records, it was confirmed that the goods covered by the disputed invoices were indeed received and utilized by the appellant. Examination of the invoices revealed that while some declarations were blank, others explicitly stated the duty paid by the manufacturer. Rule 9(3) was cited, emphasizing the necessity for dealers to maintain records indicating duty-paid stock supply. Despite some incomplete declarations, it was deemed that the appellant's legitimate cenvat credit claim should not be rejected solely based on incomplete dealer declarations, especially when goods receipt and usage were undisputed.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and allowed the appeal, setting aside the initial decision. The judgment underscored that the denial of cenvat credit due to incomplete dealer declarations was unwarranted, given the actual receipt and utilization of goods by the appellant.