2018 (8) TMI 1954 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant granted Cenvat credit on SECL invoices; Tribunal cites absence of fraud and consistency with prior judgments.

M/s Century Cement Versus CCE & ST, Raipur

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, permitting them to avail Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by SECL. The decision was made based ... CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - supplementary invoices - contravention of Rule 9(1(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - period from April 2013 to March 2014 - HELD THAT:- The issue is decided in the case of M/S DIAMOND CEMENTS VERSUS CCE, BHOPAL [2018 (8) TMI 449 - CESTAT DELHI] where it was held that the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices in question. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit based on supplementary invoices issued by SECL under Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Cement and Cement Clinker, procured coal from SECL and availed Cenvat credit on duty paid coal. SECL issued supplementary invoices to the appellant for Central Excise duty, including amounts for royalty, stowing excise duty, clean energy cess, etc. The department contended that the Additional Central Excise duty paid by SECL was recoverable due to non-levy of duty because of fraud, making the appellant ineligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of the Credit Rules.Proceedings were initiated against the appellant, leading to the present appeal. The appellant challenged the department's decision on various grounds. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions in cases involving SECL and other companies, where it was held that there was no element of fraud or suppression on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant was entitled to take Cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices in question, based on the recurring nature of the issue and absence of fraudulent intent.In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's arguments and allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief. The decision was based on the absence of fraud and the recurring nature of the issue, aligning with previous judgments in similar matters involving SECL and other companies.