Cenvat credit on invoices not in assessee's name was denied, and extended limitation was upheld for suppression.

Cenvat credit was held inadmissible where the invoices were issued to a different consignee and were neither in the assessee's name nor endorsed to it, because the prescribed documentary conditions under the Cenvat Credit Rules were not satisfied and no reliable proof showed receipt and use of the goods in the factory. The extended limitation period was also upheld because the record did not establish disclosure of the credit availment to the Department, and the concurrent finding of suppression was not displaced. As a result, the demand, interest and penalties sustained on wrongful availment of credit were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cenvat credit was admissible when the invoices on which credit was taken were not in the name of the assessee and were consigned to a different party; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression was justified.

Issue (i): Whether cenvat credit was admissible when the invoices on which credit was taken were not in the name of the assessee and were consigned to a different party.

Analysis: Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 permits receipt of duty-paid goods for being remade, refined or reconditioned and allows credit only when the goods are received as inputs under the prescribed credit rules. Rule 7(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 requires credit to be taken on the basis of prescribed documents, including invoices issued to the relevant consignee. The invoices in question were issued by the manufacturer to another consignee and were not endorsed to the assessee. No convincing documentary proof was produced to show actual receipt of the goods in the assessee's factory or their use in manufacture. The statutory requirement of a specific invoice in the name of the person availing credit was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The credit was inadmissible and the reversal of credit was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression was justified.

Analysis: The materials on record did not establish disclosure of the relevant facts to the Department during the material period. The assessee's explanation that the issue was within departmental knowledge was not supported by proof, and the plea based on an earlier letter was not accepted. The authorities concurrently found that the nature of the invoices and the manner of availing credit had been suppressed, warranting the extended limitation period. The findings on interest and penalty followed from the sustained demand and the statutory consequences attached to wrongful availment of credit.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the orders disallowing the credit, sustaining the demand, interest and penalties were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit can be availed only on prescribed documents that correspond to the assessee claiming credit, and where the invoice is not in the assessee's name and there is no proof of actual receipt and use of the goods, credit is inadmissible; non-disclosure of such availing in the face of statutory requirements can justify the extended period of limitation.

---