Appellate Tribunal allows appeal on CENVAT credit denial due to invoice name issue

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal filed by the appellant against the order denying CENVAT credit on invoices issued in the name of the loan licensee. The Tribunal recognized the correction of invoices to include the appellant's name, endorsed by the input supplier, and acknowledged the receipt and utilization of inputs in the manufacturing process. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal set aside the order confirming the demand and penalty, granting relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) denying CENVAT credit on invoices issued in the name of loan licensee.
- Corrected invoices/documents submitted later with appellant's name.
- Admissibility of CENVAT credit on corrected invoices/documents.
- Reference to Tribunal judgment in support of appellant's contention.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) denying CENVAT credit on invoices issued in the name of the loan licensee. The appellant had availed CENVAT credit during a specific period on invoices issued in the name of M/s Lekar Pharma, the loan licensee. The dispute arose as the documents were not in the appellant's name, leading to a demand notice for credit recovery and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand and penalty, prompting the appellant to file the present appeal.

The appellant contended that all invoices/documents initially in the name of M/s Lekar Pharma were later corrected to include the appellant's name as the consignee, duly endorsed by the input supplier. The appellant argued that there was no dispute regarding the receipt and utilization of inputs in the manufacturing process. Despite submitting corrected invoice copies before the authorities, the demand was confirmed. The appellant's advocate cited the Tribunal judgment in the case of CCE Salem Vs Chemplast Sanmar Ltd to support the validity of corrected invoices for availing CENVAT credit.

The Revenue's Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Department's objection to disallowing CENVAT credit on disputed invoices was based on the initial documents being in the loan licensee's name. However, the appellant subsequently corrected the invoices to include their name, and the inputs were indeed received and utilized in manufacturing. Citing the judgment in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, providing for any consequential relief as per the law.

---