2017 (6) TMI 47 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit Upheld for Purchase of Raw Material: Tribunal Rules in Favor of Respondent-Assessee

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD upheld the respondent-assessee's entitlement to Cenvat credit for the purchase of raw material from M/s M.K. ... CENVAT credit - whether the Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly held that the respondent-assessee is entitled to Cenvat credit on purchase of the raw material from M/s M.K. Steels-proprietor Shri S.K. Gupta, of Kolkata? Held that: - the respondent-assessee have received the inputs/raw materials along with the duty paying documents which are supported by pre-authenticated documents like road permit of the State of West Bengal and the State of Uttar Pradesh. Further, it is observed in the impugned order that the respondent assessee have made proper entries in their Cenvat records and other statutory records and have also manufactured dutiable goods which have been cleared on payment of duty - it is not the case of revenue that the respondent-assessee received only duty paying document from M/s M.K. Steels whereas they have received the raw material from any other source - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to Cenvat credit on the purchase of raw material from M/s M.K. Steels-proprietor Shri S.K. Gupta of Kolkata.Analysis:1. The issue in these appeals revolves around the entitlement of the respondent-assessee to Cenvat credit on the purchase of raw material from M/s M.K. Steels. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondent-assessee received the disputed goods with proper documentation, including invoices from trading firms under specific rules, bilty, GRs, and trade tax department verification. The records indicated physical receipt of goods at the factory premises, payment through cheques or drafts, and proper accounting in statutory records. The Commissioner concluded that the respondent-assessee had indeed received the goods and discharged central excise duty on the final products, rejecting the contention of the department that Cenvat credit was availed without actual receipt of raw material.2. The respondent's counsel argued that a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee in a previous case involving Juhi Alloys Ltd. and M/s M.K. Steels. The Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee in that case, emphasizing the requirement for the assessee to take reasonable steps to ensure duty payment on inputs. The High Court's judgment highlighted the provisions of Rule 9(3) of the Rules of 2004, which mandate reasonable steps to confirm duty payment on inputs for claiming Cenvat credit.3. The Tribunal found that the respondent-assessee had taken reasonable steps to ensure duty payment on inputs, as evidenced by proper documentation, payment methods, and statutory records maintenance. The Tribunal cited precedents from other High Courts to support the view that a buyer can rely on supplier statements and documents for claiming credit, without the burden of verifying duty payment directly. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and applying the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court in Juhi Alloys Limited's case.4. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the respondent-assessee's entitlement to Cenvat credit based on the factual findings and legal precedents. The decision aligned with the principle that an assessee must take reasonable steps to ensure duty payment on inputs, without imposing impractical burdens. The respondent-assessee was granted consequential benefits in accordance with the law.Judgment Summary:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD ruled on the issue of Cenvat credit entitlement for the respondent-assessee in the case involving the purchase of raw material from M/s M.K. Steels. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings that the respondent-assessee had received the goods with proper documentation and had taken reasonable steps to ensure duty payment on inputs. Citing legal precedents and the provisions of Rule 9(3) of the Rules of 2004, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals and granted consequential benefits to the respondent-assessee.