Tribunal grants appeal on cenvat credit, emphasizing supplier compliance and merit considerations.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the availing of cenvat credit. It found the appellant justified in relying on the supplier's duty payments and operational history, dismissing the demand for repayment and penalty. The judgment emphasized the supplier's compliance and operational details, concluding that there was no evidence of malpractice or suppression. The appeal was granted based on merit and limitation considerations, providing relief to the appellant in the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Availment of cenvat credit based on invoices from a supplier without necessary infrastructure.
2. Demand for cenvat credit repayment, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Allegations against the supplier regarding lack of infrastructure and non-manufacture of goods supplied.
4. Adjudication of the case based on supplier's cenvat credit history and operational details.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed cenvat credit based on invoices from a supplier, M/s. Ashok Electrical Stampings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, amounting to Rs.4,17,920. Departmental officers found the supplier lacked necessary infrastructure, leading to an alert notice and subsequent proceedings against the appellant for wrongly availing the credit.

2. The appellant argued that credit was taken based on valid invoices, goods were received and installed, and no penalty was imposed, indicating no intention to evade duty. Citing precedents, the appellant contended that duty demand beyond the normal limitation period is unjustified without evidence of suppression or offense.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) highlighted the completion of proceedings against the supplier, where it was concluded that the supplier lacked manufacturing infrastructure. The supplier's claim of using job workers was debunked, rendering the documents invalid, and placing responsibility on the appellant to verify the source of goods.

4. Upon review, it was noted that the supplier had a significant cenvat credit history and was a registered excise assessee paying duty. The department failed to prove any malpractice by the supplier, who had been operational for 15 years with machinery and raw material supplies. The judgment emphasized the supplier's compliance, challenging the department's assertion of non-manufacture.

5. The tribunal found the appellant justified in availing cenvat credit based on the supplier's duty payments and operational history. With no evidence of malpractice or suppression, the demand for repayment and penalty was deemed unjustified, aligning with the appellant's contentions. The appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellant based on merit and limitation considerations.

---