2018 (3) TMI 1045 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal to manufacturer for Cenvat Credit compliance, emphasizing legal requirements and document validity.

Maxim Adhesive Tapes Pvt Ltd., Vijaykant Deora, Sitaram Saini Versus CCE. & ST -Daman

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the main appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, against the denial of Cenvat Credit. It was found that the ... Time limitation - CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - credit availed on the basis of dealer's invoices issued by one M/s Alakh Poly films - Held that: - It is on records that main appellant had during relevant period had filed monthly returns to the jurisdictional authorities also no query were raised - This filing of returns being undisputed, the decision in the case of Prayagraj Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd [2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] would apply, where it was held that Cenvat Credit availed and if returns are filed demand cannot be issued by invoking extended period - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Denial of Cenvat CreditThe judgment pertains to three appeals challenging the denial of Cenvat Credit availed by the main appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods. The main issue revolves around the validity of the Cenvat Credit availed by the main appellant during the period of April 2008 to June 2008 based on invoices from a registered dealer, which were later deemed ineligible due to the dealer obtaining registration based on forged documents.Analysis:1. The main contention raised by the appellant was that the Cenvat Credit was availed based on valid documents during the relevant period, and the subsequent cancellation of the dealer's registration should not render the goods as non-excise duty paid. The appellant relied on judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat to support their argument that if returns are filed with authorities, the demand cannot be issued by invoking the extended period.2. On the other hand, the department argued that the registration granted to the dealer was based on forged documents, highlighting the connection between the registered dealer and the main appellant. The department contended that the lower authorities correctly established the relationship between the two entities, emphasizing the role played by the director of the main appellant in obtaining registration for the dealer.3. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, focused on the question of limitation. It was observed that the main appellant had availed Cenvat Credit during a period when the dealer's registration was valid, and returns were filed regularly with the authorities. Since the question of limitation was not raised before the lower authorities, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to raise it for the first time at this level.4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the main appellant had complied with the necessary requirements during the relevant period, and the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat supported the appellant's position. Consequently, the appeal filed by the main appellant was allowed, setting aside the Impugned Order. As a result, the appeals filed by individuals against the imposition of penalties were also allowed.5. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the main appellant, emphasizing the importance of compliance with legal requirements and the validity of documents at the time of availing Cenvat Credit. The judgment highlights the significance of timely filing returns and the ability to raise legal issues, such as limitation, before the Tribunal for the first time.