2018 (5) TMI 601 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - appellant had not received the goods of the description mentioned in the duty paying documents of the registered dealers - Held that - The description given in the registered dealer invoice in the column of manufacturer tallies in the description given in the excise invoice in the registered dealers invoice and the description given in the commercial invoice is in accordance with the purchase order number reflected on all the documents - appellant cannot be put to any further strict proof as to call for the documents received by the dealer from the manufacturer and tally the description mentioned in the invoices raised by the registered dealer etc. - credit allowed. Time Limitation - Held that - even if the records are audited, audit party will confine its findings to the cenvatable invoice and would not go into the documents like inward register and delivery challan and the audit party presumed that CENVAT invoice would tally with the physical description of the goods. Suffice to say that these findings are not in consonance with the law - extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit based on discrepancies in goods description.
2. Contesting show cause notice on merits and limitation.
3. Interpretation of relevant case laws supporting the appellant.
4. Consideration of limitation in the case.
5. Decision on setting aside demands and penalties.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolves around the availing of CENVAT credit by the appellant based on discrepancies in the description of goods received. The appellant had availed credit on goods purchased from registered dealers, but discrepancies were found in the description mentioned in the duty paying documents. This led to a show cause notice for the demand of the amount availed as credit, along with interest and penalties.

2. The appellant contested the show cause notice on both merits and limitation grounds. The Adjudicating Authority did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands with interest and penalties on the main appellant and the director individually. The appellant argued that they followed proper procedures in procuring materials and ensuring conformity to specifications before accepting goods.

3. The appellant's counsel cited specific examples and case laws to support their argument. They highlighted that the documents on which credit was availed contained all the necessary information as prescribed by the rules. The appellant's position was further supported by various case laws favoring their stance, emphasizing that they were not required to go beyond verifying the documents received from the registered dealer.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts presented and found that the appellant had a valid case. They observed a correlation between the goods ordered, delivery challans, commercial invoices, and the first stage dealer invoices, indicating proper documentation. The Tribunal held that the appellant should not be required to provide further proof beyond what was already presented, as per established legal precedents.

5. Regarding the issue of limitation, the Tribunal disagreed with the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and cited legal precedents to support their decision. They held that the demands raised on the main appellant were unsustainable and set them aside. Consequently, the question of imposing penalties on the appellant did not arise, leading to the appeals being allowed, and the impugned order being set aside.