Tribunal denies Cenvat Credit appeal based on endorsed invoices, citing Rule 9. Upheld decision due to valid limitation period.

The Tribunal upheld the decision to deny Cenvat Credit to the appellants based on endorsed invoices, citing Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the withdrawal of the Simplified Textile Scheme in 2004. The limitation period for filing the appeal was deemed valid, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on grey fabrics endorsed invoices.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
3. Applicability of Central Excise Simplified Textile Scheme.
4. Limitation period for filing the appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat Credit on grey fabrics endorsed invoices
The appellants, as processors of Man Made Gray Fabrics, received duty paid grey fabrics from dealers and availed Cenvat Credit based on endorsed invoices. The dispute arose when a show cause notice was issued to deny the Cenvat Credit. The appellant argued that as job workers, they were entitled to avail the credit as per previous decisions. However, the Revenue contended that there was no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 to allow credit on endorsed invoices. The Tribunal examined Rule 9 of the Rules, which specifies the documents for availing Cenvat Credit. It was concluded that the Cenvat Credit cannot be allowed on endorsed invoices, leading to the rejection of the appellant's appeal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004
The Tribunal focused on Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which outlines the documents required for claiming Cenvat Credit. The rule specifies various documents like invoices, supplementary invoices, bills of entry, and certificates for different scenarios. It was emphasized that the rule does not permit availing Cenvat Credit based on endorsed invoices. This interpretation was crucial in deciding the eligibility of the appellants to claim the credit.

Issue 3: Applicability of Central Excise Simplified Textile Scheme
The Tribunal highlighted the Central Excise Simplified Textile Scheme, which deemed the merchant/supplier of grey fabrics as manufacturers for duty payment purposes. Under this scheme, job workers were allowed to avail credit on invoices endorsed by merchants. However, the scheme was withdrawn in 2004, affecting the entitlement of job workers like the appellants to claim Cenvat Credit on endorsed invoices post-2004. This historical context was significant in determining the appellant's eligibility for the credit.

Issue 4: Limitation period for filing the appeal
The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation, citing the lack of disclosure of endorsed invoices to the department. However, the Tribunal noted that the Central Excise audit officers detected the irregular credit availment during verification, justifying the extended limitation period. The appellant's contention that there was no requirement to submit endorsed invoices with monthly returns was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to deny the Cenvat Credit to the appellants based on endorsed invoices, citing Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the withdrawal of the Simplified Textile Scheme in 2004. The limitation period for filing the appeal was deemed valid, and the appeal was rejected accordingly.

---