Appeal Allowed for Cenvat Credit on Supplementary Invoices

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the supplementary invoices issued by Coal Companies. The decision emphasized the absence of fraud and suppression on the part of the appellant and highlighted the recurring nature of the issue. Consequently, the order under challenge was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat Credit based on supplementary invoices issued by manufacturer
- Interpretation of Rule 9 (1) (b) of CCR 2004
- Allegation of suppression and collusion by appellant
- Applicability of Rule 9 (1) (b) in the given circumstances
- Entitlement of appellant to avail Cenvat Credit on supplementary invoices issued by Coal Companies

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant based on supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturer. The appellant, a cement and clinker manufacturer, availed Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Department alleged that the appellant took Cenvat Credit based on differential excise duty paid by subsidiary companies of Coal India Ltd., which was deemed impermissible under Rule 9 (1) (b) of CCR 2004. The Original Adjudicating Authority and the subsequent order upheld the demand, leading to the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant cited precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants, indicating that Rule 9 (1) (b) of CCR was not applicable in those circumstances. The Department, however, argued that the appellant should have verified whether the supplementary invoices fell under the exclusion clause of Rule 9 (1) (b) and that the alleged suppression and collusion could not be dismissed. The Department contended that the permission under Rule 9 (1) (b) could not be extended to the appellant due to their failure to ascertain the relevant details.

After considering the arguments and reviewing the precedents cited, the Tribunal observed that the issue of entitlement to Cenvat Credit on supplementary invoices issued by Coal Companies was pending adjudication before the Honorable Apex Court. The Tribunal noted that confusion existed due to the sub-judice nature of the matter, and suppression could not be established without positive acts of the appellant. Mere failure to ascertain the exclusion part of Rule 9 (1) (b) was not indicative of suppression or collusion. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the supplementary invoices were issued by government undertakings, and unless rebutted, there was no presumption of suppression or collusion.

Citing a previous Tribunal decision and its observations, the Tribunal set aside the order under challenge and allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the supplementary invoices in question. The decision emphasized the absence of fraud and suppression on the part of the appellant and reiterated the recurring nature of the issue. As a result, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

---