CENVAT credit cannot be denied on grounds outside the notice; factual verification is required before rejection.

An adjudicating authority cannot deny CENVAT credit on grounds not set out in the show cause notice, and any new objections introduced for the first time in the order are beyond scope. Where credit eligibility depends on verification of import, storage, and distribution records, denial is not justified without complete factual examination by the jurisdictional authority, and registration before availment is treated as procedural rather than a substantive bar. The document also notes that, where audit had already identified the issue and duty with interest was paid without fraud, suppression, collusion, or wilful misstatement being established, the matter falls within Section 11A(2B) and penalties are not sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner traversed beyond the scope of the show cause notice; (ii) whether the appellants were entitled to the CENVAT credit availed by them; (iii) whether the case was covered by Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): whether the Commissioner traversed beyond the scope of the show cause notice

Analysis: The notice proceeded on the footing that credit was availed before registration, whereas the impugned order also denied credit on additional grounds relating to the validity of stock transfer documents and lack of correlation with duty-paying documents. Those additional grounds were not part of the notice and were introduced for the first time in the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The Commissioner went beyond the scope of the show cause notice.

Issue (ii): whether the appellants were entitled to the CENVAT credit availed by them

Analysis: The order itself accepted that there was no requirement in the rules that registration had to precede the availment of credit and that registration was only procedural. The Tribunal also noted that the goods moved only from the central warehouse to the service centres and that the matter required full verification of the records relating to import, storage, and distribution before denial of credit. On that basis, the credit could not be finally rejected without a complete factual examination at the jurisdictional level.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to have the credit re-examined on verification of records, and the outright denial of credit was not sustained.

Issue (iii): whether the appellants' case was covered by Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis: The departmental audit had already noticed the issue and recorded that no further action was proposed after payment of duty along with interest. The ingredients necessary to deny the benefit of the provision, such as fraud, collusion, suppression of facts, or wilful misstatement, were not established in the notice or the impugned order.

Conclusion: The appellants' case was covered by Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed in part by setting aside the penalties and sending the credit issue back to the jurisdictional authority for fresh verification of the relevant records and documents.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority cannot deny credit on grounds not set out in the show cause notice, and where credit eligibility turns on factual correlation of records, the matter must be decided on complete verification rather than on an incomplete or expanded basis.

---