Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices upheld where duty arose from provisional assessment, with no fraud or suppression found.

Cenvat credit could not be denied to a job worker on supplementary invoices issued after finalisation of the principal manufacturer's provisional assessment, where the additional duty arose from the assessment process itself and there was no fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or similar intent to evade duty. Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was treated as a bar only in cases involving such mala fide conduct. As there was no finding of suppressed production or other bad faith, and the principal manufacturer's contemporaneous certificate linked the supplementary invoices to the original supplies, the denial of credit was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit could be denied to a job worker on the strength of supplementary invoices issued after finalisation of the principal manufacturer's provisional assessment, in the absence of fraud, suppression or other mala fides attracting the bar under Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis: The credit was taken on duty paid by the principal manufacturer after finalisation of its provisional assessment, and the short payment arose from the assessment process itself. Rule 7(1)(b) was held to apply only where the additional duty becomes recoverable because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or similar contravention with intent to evade duty. On the facts, there was no finding of suppressed production or mala fide intent. The contemporaneous certificate from the principal manufacturer also supported that the supplementary invoices related to the original invoices, and there was no rebuttal.

Conclusion: The denial of credit was unsustainable. The appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit, and the impugned orders were set aside with consequential relief.

---