2018 (2) TMI 727 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants Cenvat Credit on capital goods despite procedural objections, upholding substantive benefits.

M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the availment of Cenvat Credit on capital goods based on endorsed invoices. ... CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - whether endorsed invoices can be held to be valid documents for the purpose of availment of Cenvat Credit during the relevant period? - Held that: - the Revenue itself endorsed the invoices at the request of the Sahyadri Sahkari Sahkkar Karkhana Ltd. If they would have objected at that particular point of time, said sender of the capital goods would have issued fresh invoices. There is no dispute about receipt of the capital goods and their duty paid character and only the technical objection is being adopted by the Revenue for denial of the Cenvat Credit, which is otherwise available to the appellant - It is well settled law that substantive benefits cannot be denied by raising grounds of technical procedural violation, if any. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Availment of Cenvat Credit based on endorsed invoices.Analysis:The appeal involved a short issue regarding the availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant on capital goods based on invoices endorsed by another entity. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses, received the capital goods from another entity after a lapse of two years, with the original invoices endorsed by the Superintendent and Inspector of Central Excise in favor of the appellant. The Revenue objected to the availment of credit, arguing that endorsed invoices were not valid documents for Cenvat Credit during the relevant period.Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the original sender of the capital goods had approached the jurisdictional officers for endorsing the invoices in favor of the appellant. The Revenue contended that fresh invoices should have been issued instead of endorsement. However, the Tribunal observed that the Revenue itself endorsed the invoices at the sender's request, and there was no dispute regarding the receipt of duty-paid capital goods. The Revenue's objection was based on technical grounds, while the substantive benefit of Cenvat Credit was rightfully available to the appellant.The Tribunal emphasized that substantive benefits cannot be denied due to technical procedural violations. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the principle that technical objections should not override substantive entitlements, especially when there is no dispute regarding the receipt and nature of the goods in question.