2012 (7) TMI 817 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Disallowance of Cenvat Credit Claim

The Tribunal upheld the decision to disallow the appellant's cenvat credit claim based on invoices from another company, as a Division Bench had ... Availment of cenvat credit - invoices raised by Itisha - Held that:- Itisha has only issued the invoices and they did not have any manufacturing activity - Therefore, Following decision of AKIK DYECHEM PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD [2013 (9) TMI 415 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Availment of cenvat credit on invoices raised by another company without receiving the goods.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad was directed against an Order in Appeal dated 30.06.2009. The appellant had been availing cenvat credit of duty paid on invoices raised by another company during the period 2004-05. The Revenue contended that the appellant did not actually receive the goods for which cenvat credit was claimed, but only relied on the invoices. Both lower authorities ruled against the appellant, providing detailed reasoning for disallowing the cenvat credit.The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant had been purchasing goods from the other company since 1997, and the invoices showed duty payment details and Central Excise registration information. The counsel highlighted that the appellant had submitted a detailed statement regarding the receipt of raw material and production, which was not considered by the lower authorities. Additionally, the appellant's Central Excise records had been audited since 1996, as evidenced by the audit signatures on the records. The counsel also pointed out the absence of any incriminating statements from transporters or partners regarding the cenvat credit issue.The Departmental Representative referred to a Tribunal judgment in a similar case, stating that the duty liability needed confirmation, but there was a difference of opinion on penalties. The Tribunal Member, Mr. M.V. Ravindran, considered both parties' submissions and noted that a Division Bench had previously ruled that the company issuing the invoices did not engage in manufacturing activities, making the cenvat credit claim invalid. The Tribunal held that the Division Bench's decision was binding on a Single Member Bench, and since the issue had been settled previously, the appellant's appeal was rejected, upholding the impugned order.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to disallow the cenvat credit claimed by the appellant based on invoices from the other company, as the Division Bench had already ruled against similar claims in a previous case, making the appellant ineligible for the credit.