Cenvat credit on job-work capital goods cannot be denied for mere challan defects where movement and return are proved.

Cenvat credit on capital goods sent to a job worker was upheld where challans and records showed actual movement and return of goods, and the rule did not require any specific challan format; minor procedural defects could not defeat substantive entitlement. The extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A was held unavailable because the demand arose from the assessee's disclosed records and there was no independent evidence of suppression or wilful misstatement. As the credit demand failed, interest and penalties also fell, and the personal penalty on the co-appellant was not sustainable because the invoked provision did not apply to that position.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit on capital goods sent to a job worker could be denied for alleged non-compliance with the challan procedure under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invocable; and (iii) whether interest and penalties, including personal penalty on the co-appellant, were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether Cenvat credit on capital goods sent to a job worker could be denied for alleged non-compliance with the challan procedure under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The challans and connected records showed that the capital goods had been sent to the job worker and received back, and the Rule did not prescribe any particular form or format for the challans. In the absence of independent evidence that the documents were fabricated later or that the goods were not actually moved under cover of challans, the alleged irregularity was only procedural. The entry of the goods in the job worker's records and the return of most of the goods within the prescribed period supported the claim of compliance. Minor infirmities in manual challans could not override the substantive entitlement where receipt, use and movement of the capital goods stood established.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was not sustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was invocable.

Analysis: The demand was based on records produced by the assessee itself, and there was no independent material showing deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement. When the alleged inadmissibility surfaced from the disclosed records, the foundation for invoking the extended period was absent. The proceedings, therefore, could not be sustained on the allegation of suppression.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the department and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether interest and penalties, including personal penalty on the co-appellant, were sustainable.

Analysis: Once the credit demand itself failed, interest and penalty could not survive. Personal penalty on the co-appellant was also unsustainable because the provision invoked for such penalty was directed against the manufacturer and not against a person in the co-appellant's position. As the case rested on a technical procedural dispute rather than any proved mens rea or substantive evasion, penal consequences were not justified.

Conclusion: Interest and all penalties, including the personal penalty, were not sustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in entirety and both appeals succeeded, with no surviving demand, interest or penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where substantive movement and return of capital goods under job work are established, a mere procedural defect in challans does not defeat Cenvat credit, and in the absence of independent evidence of suppression the extended period and consequential penalties cannot be invoked.

---