Appellant granted cenvat credit on subsidiary invoices despite additional consideration allegations. Tribunal decision affirms entitlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant, a manufacturer of Aluminium, to avail cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by subsidiary companies, despite allegations of additional consideration. Citing previous decisions and the absence of fraud or suppression, the Tribunal granted the appellant entitlement to the cenvat credit, setting aside the disallowance and recovery demand. The appeal was allowed based on the recurring nature of the issue and alignment with previous decisions, affirming the appellant's right to claim cenvat credit on the disputed invoices.

---

---

Issues:
1. Availing cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by subsidiary companies.
2. Allegation of additional consideration received by the subsidiary companies.
3. Violation of Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules.
4. Applicability of cenvat credit based on the pendency of similar matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Aluminium, availed cenvat credit on supplementary invoices issued by subsidiary companies of Coal India Ltd. The Preventive Branch alleged additional consideration received by the subsidiary companies, leading to a demand for disallowance and recovery of wrongly availed cenvat credit. The Order-in-Original confirmed this proposal, prompting the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the main issue of valuation is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and cited previous decisions in their favor. They contended that similar matters have been decided in favor of appellants, emphasizing that their case aligns with those decisions, seeking allowance of the appeal.

3. The Department argued that the pendency of adjudication against the subsidiary companies before the Hon'ble Apex Court should not be the sole basis for allowing the appeal. They asserted that there is sufficient evidence to establish a violation of Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, indicating the appellant's failure to ascertain the absence of misconduct or suppression of facts.

4. The Tribunal considered previous decisions, including one involving Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, where it was held that cenvat credit can be availed based on the pendency of similar matters before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Referring to another case involving M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized the absence of fraud and suppression, allowing the appeal and granting the appellant entitlement to cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices.

5. Consequently, based on the precedent set by previous decisions and the recurring nature of the issue, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, affirming the appellant's right to take cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices in question.

---