2019 (5) TMI 1244 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - credit availed on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by the subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited i.e. M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Limited (M/s. SECL) against the coal receipts despite that the appellants units has been closed since June 2013 - HELD THAT - In the present case admittedly the supplementary invoices on which credit has been availed were issued in March and May 2013 and the credit there upon has been availed in March 2014 December 2014 and January 2015. Thus the credit has neither been availed immediately on the receipt of inputs nor has been availed within the six months of the issue of the receipts. It becomes clear that while availing the said cenvat credit assessee has contravened the time limit of both the provisions relevant for the availment of the cenvat credit even on supplementary invoices. The argument of the appellant of not receiving the invoices in time and the emphasis upon RTI application is not sufficient to extend any benefit in favour of the assessee because as per the Rules of Interpretation of Law the language of the statute has to be read strictly in terms of the language therein. Both the Rules as quoted above have no ambiguity as far as the time for the availment of cenvat credit is concerned. There is nothing nor even the RTI applications which can give any reason to have an extended interpretation to both these provisions. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of cenvat credit on supplementary invoices beyond the time limit prescribed by Rule 4(1) and Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the recovery of cenvat credit amounting to ?21,54,707/- availed by the appellant, a manufacturer of sponge iron, on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by subsidiary companies of Coal India Limited. The Department alleged that the appellant contravened Rule 4(1) and Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, by availing the credit beyond the stipulated time limit of six months from the issue of the invoices. The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the recovery proposal, leading to the current appeal.

The appellant argued that the invoices were not available to them before the period they availed the credit, and relied on Right to Information Act applications to support their claim. They cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their plea for setting aside the order. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative justified the order, emphasizing the time limit provisions of Rule 4(1) and Rule 9(1)(b) of CCR, 2004, and alleged suppression of earlier credit availed by the appellant.

After considering the arguments and relevant legal provisions, the Tribunal observed that the manufacturer could avail cenvat credit on supplementary invoices subject to specific conditions, including availing the credit immediately upon receipt of inputs and within six months from the issue of the invoice. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had contravened both time limits as per the Rules, despite the appellant's argument regarding invoice availability. The Tribunal also referred to a circular clarifying the limitation of six months for availing credit for the first time on eligible documents, emphasizing that the appellant's case did not qualify for re-credit due to suppression of earlier credit entry. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order denying the appellant the cenvat credit on supplementary invoices, citing the statutory time limit and suppression as reasons for dismissal of the appeal.