Tribunal allows appeal partially on Cenvat credit issues but upholds penalty under Section 11AC.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Cenvat credit for six invoices amounting to Rs. 1.82 lakhs was admissible as the corrections made by the supplier aligned with the facts. However, other demands were confirmed. The penalty under Section 11AC was upheld due to the extended period for suppression of facts, and it could not be reduced or waived. The impugned order was modified accordingly, with the judgment pronounced on 27/9/17.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on input due to discrepancies in invoices.
2. Confirmation of demand by adjudicating authority.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.
4. Appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) and subsequent appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the denial of Cenvat credit on input due to discrepancies in invoices, such as incorrect addresses, material delivered to different units, missing invoices, excess credit availed, and double availing of capital goods credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,89,624 out of the proposed Rs. 7,90,195, along with a penalty under Section 11AC and interest. The appellant contested the denial of credit for six invoices amounting to Rs. 1.82 lakhs, arguing that the address discrepancy was rectified by the supplier, making the credit valid. The appellant relied on a judgment to support their case.

2. The Revenue, represented by the Superintendent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that corrected invoices without departmental intimation cannot be accepted. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the appellant sought relief only for the six invoices totaling Rs. 1.82 lakhs. It was noted that there was no evidence that the inputs were received and used by the appellant. The Tribunal held that inadvertent mistakes in invoices can be corrected by the issuer, as long as the correction aligns with the facts. As there was no evidence of incorrect corrections, the Cenvat credit for the six invoices was deemed admissible, while other demands were confirmed.

3. Regarding the penalty under Section 11AC, the Tribunal upheld it, citing the extended period due to suppression of facts, similar to the provisions of Section 11AC. The penalty could not be reduced or waived based on a precedent, and hence, the penalty was maintained. Consequently, the impugned order was modified, allowing the appeal in part. The judgment was pronounced on 27/9/17.

---