2016 (2) TMI 867 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's CENVAT credit denial overturned based on lack of evidence; relief granted.

The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, faced denial of CENVAT credit due to missing GRNs and BIN cards for 11 invoices. Despite the lower authorities ... CENVAT credit - evidence of receipt of inputs - Goods Receipt Notes and BIN cards - prescribed documents under the CENVAT Credit Rules - burden of proof on RevenueCENVAT credit - evidence of receipt of inputs - Goods Receipt Notes and BIN cards - prescribed documents under the CENVAT Credit Rules - burden of proof on Revenue - Whether denial of CENVAT credit in respect of inputs shown in 11 invoices can be sustained solely because corresponding GRNs and BIN cards were not available - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the denial of credit rested exclusively on the non-availability of GRNs and BIN cards for 11 invoices. The appellant maintained statutory records showing the invoices and accountal of CENVAT credit and had utilized the inputs in manufacture, the final products being cleared on payment of duty. The court observed that GRNs and BIN cards are not prescribed documents under the CENVAT Credit Rules and serve only to show receipt at the factory gate; their non-availability alone is not conclusive proof of non-receipt. The Revenue had not produced any corroborative evidence nor made enquiries from the consignors named in the invoices to contradict the appellant's account. In these circumstances, and having regard to the absence of any independent evidence disproving receipt and utilisation of inputs, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of credit on that sole ground was unsustainable. [Paras 6]Impugned orders denying CENVAT credit are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits, holding that absence of GRNs and BIN cards, which are not prescribed documents, was not sufficient to disallow CENVAT credit for the period June 2007 to January 2008 in the absence of corroborative evidence by the Revenue; impugned orders were set aside. Issues:- Wrong availment of CENVAT credit without receiving inputs- Denial of credit based on non-availability of GRNs and BIN cards for 11 invoices- Appeal against order confirming demand, interest, and penaltyAnalysis:1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing sheet metal enclosures and mechanical assemblies, availed CENVAT credit on duty paid inputs for their final products under Chapter 84 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Central Excise officers visited the appellant's factory and found 11 invoices without corresponding Goods Receipt Notes (GRNs) and BIN cards, suspecting wrongful CENVAT credit availment. Statements were recorded, initiating proceedings alleging a credit of Rs. 5,75,782 wrongly availed from June 2007 to January 2008.3. The Additional Commissioner's order confirming the demand, interest, and penalty was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal challenging the denial of credit based on missing GRNs and BIN cards for 11 invoices.4. The appellant argued that out of approximately 1200 invoices received annually, the absence of GRNs and BIN cards for 11 invoices shouldn't lead to credit denial. They maintained all necessary documents, and the inputs were accounted for in the CENVAT credit account, essential for producing final products cleared after duty payment.5. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the missing documents as grounds for credit denial.6. The Judicial Member analyzed the situation, noting that the denial was solely based on the absence of GRNs and BIN cards for 11 invoices. The appellant's explanation, supported by statutory records and the necessity of inputs for final product manufacturing, was deemed valid. Lack of inquiries from the input senders and absence of conclusive evidence led to overturning the lower authorities' decision.7. The judgment set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal with relief to the appellant due to insufficient evidence supporting the Revenue's stance. The plea of limitation was not addressed as the appeal succeeded on merit.