2013 (8) TMI 921 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal Upholds CENVAT Credit Decision

CCE Versus Delhi Control Devices (P) Ltd.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the Respondents, emphasizing that the Appellant had fulfilled the ... CENVAT credit - Brass Sheets - description of goods mentioned wrongly in the invoices. Held that:- There is no denial of the fact that the description of the goods was mentioned in the invoices issued by the registered dealer as only 'brass sheet' and the same stands reflected by the Appellant in their statutory records. The same have also been used in the manufacture of final products, on which duty has been paid by them - CENVAT Credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Disallowance of CENVAT Credit and PenaltyIssue 1: Disallowance of CENVAT CreditThe case involved an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the disallowance of CENVAT Credit and penalty. The revenue contended that the credit should be disallowed as the goods purchased were different from what was mentioned in the invoices. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Appellant had received the goods as per the purchase invoices from a registered dealer, and the duty on the inputs had been paid. The Tribunal emphasized that once the receipt of goods is proven, the admissibility of CENVAT Credit cannot be denied. The Appellant had ensured that the inputs were procured from registered dealers with proper duty paying documents, fulfilling the statutory criteria. The Tribunal held that the credit cannot be denied merely based on the discrepancy in the goods mentioned on the invoices and the actual goods received.Issue 2: Observations on the Purchase InvoicesThe Appellate Tribunal considered the purchase invoices and found in favor of the Respondents, stating that the Appellants had indeed received the goods from the registered dealer. The Tribunal emphasized that since the Appellant had checked the authenticity of the invoices and the dealer was registered, they had taken due care in procuring duty-paid inputs. The Tribunal concluded that CENVAT Credit cannot be disallowed based solely on the discrepancy in the goods mentioned on the invoices and the actual goods received.Issue 3: Revenue's ContentionThe revenue contended that the registered dealer did not receive the specific goods mentioned in the invoices, as they were not manufacturing those goods. However, the Tribunal noted that the description of goods in the invoices matched what was reflected in the Appellant's statutory records. The goods mentioned in the invoices were used in the manufacture of final products on which duty had been paid. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the Respondents, emphasizing that the Appellant had fulfilled the necessary criteria for availing CENVAT Credit and that the discrepancy in goods mentioned on the invoices did not warrant disallowance of the credit.