Cenvat credit through immediate registered supplier upheld; dealer penalty cannot apply before the specific penal provision

Cenvat credit on inputs received from a second stage dealer was treated as available where the recipient proved receipt from its immediate registered supplier, payment by cheque, proper credit records, and use of the inputs in manufacture. The department's allegation that earlier invoices at the upstream level involved no actual movement of goods did not by itself defeat credit, because the recipient was not required to trace the supplier's source of procurement. Penalty on dealers was also held unsustainable for a period before the specific penal provision for dealers came into force, so the duty demand and penalties were annulled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the manufacturer was entitled to Cenvat credit on inputs received from the second stage dealer despite the department's allegation that the original manufacturer had issued invoices without actual movement of goods; (ii) whether penalty could be sustained on the dealers, including for a period prior to the insertion of the specific penal provision by Notification No. 8/2007-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2007.

Issue (i): Whether the manufacturer was entitled to Cenvat credit on inputs received from the second stage dealer despite the department's allegation that the original manufacturer had issued invoices without actual movement of goods.

Analysis: The relevant consideration was whether the recipient knew its immediate supplier and had received the inputs under invoices from a registered dealer. The record showed that the manufacturer received goods from the second stage dealer, made payment by cheque, maintained credit records, and used the inputs in manufacture. The department's material concerned earlier transactions at the end of the original manufacturer and first stage dealer, but did not establish that the assessee had procured inputs from any alternative source or that the inputs were not received from its immediate supplier. The requirement under Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules was treated as satisfied by knowledge of the immediate supplier, not by tracing the supplier's source of procurement.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit and the consequential demand and penalty on the manufacturer and the second stage dealer were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be sustained on the dealers, including for a period prior to the insertion of the specific penal provision by Notification No. 8/2007-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2007.

Analysis: The penalty on the first stage dealer was challenged on the footing that the specific provision for penal action against dealers was introduced only by the cited notification, and the dispute period in the case was earlier. On that basis, the penalty could not be supported for the prior period.

Conclusion: The penalty on the first stage dealer was also set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and all adverse duty and penalty consequences were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: For Cenvat credit purposes, the recipient is required to establish receipt of inputs from its immediate registered supplier, and is not obliged to trace the supplier's upstream procurement; a dealer penalty cannot be sustained for a period anterior to the operative penal provision specifically covering such dealers.

---