2018 (5) TMI 91 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Rule 9 of the CCR 2004 - Triplicate copy and extra copy of invoices, which are mostly supported by the certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent - Held that - the duty paid character of the inputs mentioned in the invoices is certified by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. Discrepancy between quantity mentioned in the input invoices and Cenvat Credit Register - Held that - in the invoices it is shown on notional area wise, whereas in the Cenvat Credit Register it is mentioned calculating the area considering the thickness of the veneer. Besides, there is no dispute of the fact that the inputs mentioned in the invoices had been duly received and utilized in the manufacture of finished goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit on triplicate and extra copy of invoices.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit on triplicate and extra copy of invoices
The appeal was filed against a decision passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-III, denying the appellant the Cenvat credit of ?4,09,762 on triplicate and extra copies of invoices. The authorities argued that these documents were not prescribed under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, along with Section 11 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant contended that the goods were received in the factory premises and used in the manufacture of finished goods. They claimed that Cenvat credit should be allowed on the original copy of the invoice in case of loss of the duplicate copy. The appellant supported their case with certificates issued by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. They referenced judgments to support their claim, including the Tribunal's decision in Sehmbey Products vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar and the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II vs. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. The appellant also cited cases like Cords Cable Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I and Union of India vs. Hira Steels Ltd. The appellate tribunal found that the Cenvat credit on the invoices had been denied by the lower authorities based on non-conformity with the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, considering the arguments presented, the tribunal held that the eligibility of credit on triplicate and extra copies of invoices had been established in previous cases. The duty paid status of the inputs mentioned in the invoices was certified by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. The tribunal also acknowledged the discrepancy in quantity recording between the invoices and the Cenvat Credit Register, attributing it to different measurement methods. Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per the law.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents referenced, and the tribunal's reasoning behind allowing the Cenvat credit on triplicate and extra copies of invoices.