Tribunal rules for Appellant on Cenvat Credit & Education Cess, emphasizing procedural compliance.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the denial of Cenvat Credit and penalty imposed. The decision clarified that pre-printed invoices were not mandatory for claiming Cenvat Credit, emphasizing procedural compliance and placing the burden of proof on the Revenue to show credit availed by the Appellant. Additionally, the Tribunal held that no Education Cess was payable on plastic crates received in 2001-02, thus allowing the appeal and overturning the previous Order-in-Appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty.
2. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on hand-written serial numbers on invoices.
3. Payment of Education Cess on plastic crates and clearance during 2006-07.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant challenged the denial of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 6,00,893 and the penalty imposed. The dispute included demands related to removal of inputs and invoices with hand-written serial numbers. The Appellant argued that no Education Cess was payable on plastic crates received in 2001-02, hence no reversal of Cenvat Credit was required during clearance.

2. The Advocate for the Appellant cited the CESTAT Larger Bench judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Satyen Dyes, highlighting the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on hand-written serial numbers on invoices. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that pre-printed invoices were mandatory, referencing Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Spectra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that under Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002, pre-printing was not obligatory, and minor procedural lapses should not bar Cenvat Credit.

3. Regarding the payment of Education Cess on plastic crates cleared in 2006-07, the Revenue argued that the Appellant failed to provide evidence of not availing Cenvat Credit on Education Cess during receipt. However, the Tribunal emphasized the onus on the Revenue to prove such credit was taken, citing Commissioner of Customs vs. Auto Ignition Ltd. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 14.06.2012.

This judgment clarifies the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on hand-written serial numbers on invoices, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the burden of proof on the Revenue regarding Cenvat Credit availed by the Appellant.

---