Transitional Cenvat credit requires timely declaration and duty proof; consignment-agent invoices alone cannot support actual credit.

Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 created two separate transitional routes for textile goods in stock as on 31 March 2003: actual duty-paid credit on the basis of a written declaration supported by duty-paying documents, and deemed credit where such documents were unavailable. The declaration for the actual-credit route had to be filed by 15 June 2003, and stock declared under that route could not also be claimed under the deemed-credit route. A belated actual-credit claim, supported largely by consignment-agent invoices without duty-payment particulars and without adequate linkage to stock on the relevant date, was held inadmissible, and the disallowance of credit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to Cenvat credit on inputs contained in finished goods under Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, on the basis of invoices issued by consignment agents and certificates evidencing duty payment, despite filing the claim under the actual-credit provision after the prescribed date.

Analysis: Rule 9A provided two distinct transitional entitlements for textile goods lying in stock as on 31 March 2003: credit on actual duty paid inputs upon a written declaration supported by duty-paying documents, and deemed credit where such documents were unavailable. The declaration under the actual-credit route had to be made on or before 15 June 2003, and the declaration under the deemed-credit route had to exclude stock already declared under the actual-credit route. The claim for actual credit was made after the due date. A substantial part of the supporting material consisted of invoices issued by consignment agents without duty-payment particulars, and the records did not satisfactorily establish that the goods covered by those invoices were relatable to stock lying as on the relevant date.

Conclusion: The credit claim under the actual-duty-paid route was not admissible, and the disallowance of credit was upheld.

---