2018 (10) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - supplementary invoices - Held that - There was no necessity of issuing supplementary invoice for availing the Cenvat credit of differential amount of duty paid by the manufacturers - there is no revenue loss to the Department in the present case. Once the manufacturer has paid the differential duty for the disputed period and there is no revenue loss to the Department, therefore, rejection of the claim of the appellant for Cenvat credit is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeal) order setting aside Order-in-Original regarding wrongly availed Cenvat credit.
2. Allegations of excess Cenvat credit taken by the appellant based on invoices from registered dealers.
3. Dispute over the necessity of supplementary invoices for availing Cenvat credits of differential duty paid by manufacturers.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal was directed against the Commissioner (Appeal) order accepting the Revenue's appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Original. The appellant, a manufacturer of flats falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs. A show cause notice was issued for wrongly availed Cenvat credit amounting to ?2,63,158/- for the period of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The original authority dropped the demand, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: The appellant had purchased billets from registered dealers who had passed on Cenvat credit in excess of the actual duty paid by the original manufacturers of the inputs. The appellant argued that they received inputs under proper duty paying documents and took credits equivalent to the duty amount paid by the manufacturer. The appellant contended that the manufacturers had paid the differential duty by the due date, as confirmed by the authorities, negating the need for supplementary invoices for availing Cenvat credits.

Issue 3: The appellant asserted that once the manufacturer paid the differential duty and there was no revenue loss to the Department, there was no requirement for supplementary invoices. The appellate authority concurred, noting that the manufacturer had discharged the differential duty for the disputed period, as confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. As there was no revenue loss and the manufacturer had paid the differential duty, the rejection of the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit was deemed unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, including the dispute over wrongly availed Cenvat credit, the role of registered dealers, and the necessity of supplementary invoices for availing Cenvat credits.