2024 (7) TMI 377 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - denial on the basis that address of the appellant is not mentioned in the document against which they have taken the Cenvat credit - HELD THAT - As the only allegation against three of these invoices that address of the appellant is not mentioned correctly which has been rectified and certified by the supplier, therefore, it is held that on these three invoices appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit and they have taken Cenvat credit correctly. Denial of Cenvat credit on Bills of Entry, out of three Bills of Entry, two Bills of Entry has been rectified by the customs authorities themselves and correct address has been mentioned. The same has been verified and seen that the same has been rectified by the customs authorities. Therefore, on these two Bills of Entry which has been rectified by the customs authorities, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit. With regard to last Bill of Entry No. 683232 dated 29.01.2014, the name of the Head Office is mentioned. It is a case of the appellant that Head Office has not taken Cenvat credit. The said fact is required to verify by the adjudicating authority. If Head Office has not taken the Cenvat credit on the said Bill of Entry, than the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit. The appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on invoices in the show cause notice dated 28.01.2019 - the matter back to the adjudicating authority - no penalty is imposable on the appellant - appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat credit on invoices and Bills of Entry due to address discrepancies.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the denial of Cenvat credit on invoices and Bills of Entry due to address discrepancies. The impugned order questioned the Cenvat credit claimed on three invoices where the supplier erroneously listed the warehouse address instead of the appellant's office address. The appellant rectified these discrepancies, supported by a certificate from the supplier confirming the corrections. The Tribunal verified this rectification and held the appellant entitled to the Cenvat credit for these three invoices.

Regarding the Bills of Entry issue, out of the three entries, two were rectified by customs authorities, ensuring the correct address was reflected. The Tribunal confirmed that the appellant could claim the Cenvat credit for these two rectified Bills of Entry. However, the third Bill of Entry listed the Head Office's name instead of the appellant's, raising doubts about the Cenvat credit eligibility. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify if the Head Office had claimed the credit for this entry. If not, the appellant would be allowed the Cenvat credit for this particular Bill of Entry.

In the arguments presented, the appellant highlighted that all goods were received in their factory, duly recorded in the stock register, and essential for manufacturing final products subject to duty. On the contrary, the Authorized Representative emphasized the lack of relevant documents proving goods receipt and transport, which hindered verification by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions before rendering the decision.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing Cenvat credit for the rectified invoices and Bills of Entry, subject to verification regarding the Head Office's credit claim. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further verification, with no penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal was resolved with these terms, ensuring a fair and detailed assessment of the address discrepancies' impact on Cenvat credit eligibility.