2022 (11) TMI 690 - AT - Central Excise

Partial appeal success grants relief on denial grounds, remands for further verification, ensuring fair CENVAT Credit assessment.

M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli

M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited Versus Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli - TMI Issues:1. Denial of CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant from October 2009 to September 2011.2. Grounds for denial: Defective documents, incorrect address, ineligible credit, etc.3. Arguments presented by the appellant regarding each ground of denial.4. Department's response to the appellant's arguments.5. Judgment on each ground of denial and eligibility of CENVAT Credit.Analysis:Issue 1 - Denial of CENVAT Credit:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing PVC Resin, availed CENVAT Credit on Excise Duty paid inputs and Service Tax on input services. Show Cause Notices were issued proposing denial of credit due to defective documents and ineligible credit availed. The Original Authority partially allowed credit and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal.Issue 2 - Grounds for Denial:Grounds for denial included incorrect address on invoices, missing service provider registration numbers, availing credit on debit notes, lack of necessary documents, and denial based on retained money. The appellant argued each point, providing explanations and clarifications.Issue 3 - Appellant's Arguments:The appellant's counsel argued that errors in invoices were vendor mistakes, registration numbers were later added, credit on debit notes was valid, all necessary documents were now produced, and services like Helipad repair and Banking Charges were eligible for credit due to business nexus.Issue 4 - Department's Response:The Department's Authorized Representative supported the denial, citing lack of document verification, absence of nexus for certain services, and insufficient correlation between retained money and credit availed.Issue 5 - Judgment on Denial and Eligibility:The judgment allowed credit where invoices had minor errors, registration numbers were later added, and credit was availed on valid documents. Credit was remanded for further verification where necessary documents were not initially produced. Services like Helipad repair and Banking Charges were deemed eligible for credit due to business nexus. The judgment upheld most of the appellant's arguments, setting aside the denial of credit on most services except for specific amounts remanded for verification.In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, providing relief on most grounds of denial and remanding specific amounts for further verification, ensuring a fair assessment of CENVAT Credit eligibility for the appellant.