2019 (7) TMI 765 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows cenvat credit based on invoices, overturns denial due to procurement discrepancies. No penalties imposed.

M/s Ess Vee Udyog, Shree Balaji Udyog Versus CCE, Ludhiana

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the admissibility of cenvat credit based on invoices from the second stage dealer, M/s Shri Bala Ji ... CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - credit denied alleging that the appellant has taken cenvat on the strength of invoices issued by the third stage dealer - HELD THAT:- In the reply to the show cause notice, the appellant had submitted that as per the agreement between M/s Gupta Impex and M/s Ess Vee Udyog, M/s Ess Vee Udyog is a consignment agent and procured the goods from M/s Gupta Impex on the strength of ‘F’ Form. The said evidence has not been considered by the Revenue while passing the impugned order. On going through the F Form as well as agreement produced by the appellant, it has been established by the appellant that M/s Ess Vee Udyog, Plot No. 5-6, Ram Bagh Colony, Jalandhar is the consignment agent of M/s Gupta Impex, Delhi as they have procured the goods on the strength of ‘F’ Form placed herein above. As M/s Ess Vee Udyog, Jalandhar is the consignment agent, therefore, M/s Bala Ji Udyog is only a second stage dealer who has issued invoices to the appellant and supplied the goods to the appellant - Therefore, the appellant has rightly availed the cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by Shri Bala Ji Udyog, Jalandhar as second stage dealer. The appellant has rightly availed cenvat on the strength of invoices issued by the second stage dealer, therefore, the cenvat credit cannot be denied - Penalty also not imposable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Denial of cenvat credit based on invoices from a third stage dealer.2. Dispute regarding the status of the second stage dealer as a consignment agent.3. Consideration of evidence regarding consignment agreement and 'F' Form.4. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules and distinction between dealers at different stages.5. Decision on the admissibility of cenvat credit based on the second stage dealer's invoices.Analysis:1. The appeal involved a challenge against the denial of cenvat credit by the appellants due to alleged incorrect procurement from a third stage dealer. The impugned order contended that cenvat credit was inadmissible as per CCR, 2004, for invoices from third stage dealers. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the procurement process and issuance of invoices, leading to the denial of credit.2. The dispute centered around the status of the second stage dealer, M/s Ess Vee Udyog, as either a consignment agent or a regular dealer. The appellant argued that M/s Ess Vee Udyog acted as a consignment agent, justifying the credit availed. In contrast, the Revenue contended that no evidence supported this claim, emphasizing the absence of a consignment agreement or relevant documentation.3. The tribunal considered crucial evidence presented by the appellant, including a consignment agreement and an 'F' Form, to establish the consignment relationship between M/s Ess Vee Udyog and M/s Gupta Impex. This evidence, initially overlooked by the Revenue, played a pivotal role in determining the admissibility of cenvat credit based on the second stage dealer's invoices.4. The analysis delved into the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the legislative intent behind distinguishing dealers at different stages. The tribunal highlighted the specific requirements for availing credit based on invoices issued by manufacturers, importers, and dealers at different stages, underscoring the strict compliance needed for cenvat eligibility.5. Ultimately, the tribunal found in favor of the appellant, acknowledging the validity of cenvat credit based on invoices from the second stage dealer, M/s Shri Bala Ji Udyog. The tribunal's decision rested on the established consignment relationship between M/s Ess Vee Udyog and M/s Gupta Impex, affirming the admissibility of the credit and setting aside the impugned order with no penalty imposed on the appellants.