2023 (7) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal, overturns denial of Cenvat Credit citing flaws in notice and lack of verification.

M/s. Mangal Steel Enterprises Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Howrah Commissionerate

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant, setting aside the lower Authorities' decision to deny Cenvat Credit on various inputs. The ... CENVAT Credit - inputs - Invoices are falling within the definition of documents under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or not - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the Annexure A of the Show Cause Notice that while 45 items have been listed towards Cenvat Credit of Rs.2,78,521/- the objection has been made in the Remarks column only for about five or six items. No remarks have been made by the Department as to why all these items are not eligible for the Cenvat Credit. Even the remarks made in some cases are not very serious in nature. From the Show Cause Notice, it is observed that merely on the basis of Audit Report, the proceedings have been initiated. No investigation was conducted by the Department on the detailed reply filed by the Appellant with the Audit Team - It is seen that there is no dispute about the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on account of the Invoices raised. No facts have been brought in to the effect that Appellant has not recorded these inputs in their records and there is no dispute that the appellant was not making payments for such inputs used in their industry. Department has not brought in any concrete evidence to deny the Cenvat Credit taken by the Appellant. The Lower Authorities were in error in not addressing the item-wise details furnished by the Appellant. Therefore, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed. Issues:The denial of Cenvat Credit on various inputs used by the Appellant in their factory premises based on the Show Cause Notice issued after an audit conducted in May 2014 for the period 2013-14.Comprehensive Details:The Appellant filed a detailed reply with the Audit Team listing item-wise receipt and issue details of the inputs in question. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice seeking reversal of the Cenvat Credit along with interest and penalty. The lower Authorities confirmed the demand, leading the Appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.The Learned Consultant for the Appellant argued that the items in question were inputs/consumables used in the manufacturing process, with proper records maintained for purchase, stock, and issue of these items. Payments to vendors were made through Banking Channels, and the invoices complied with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Furthermore, it was contended that despite all pleadings being presented to the lower Authorities, they were not adequately considered, and demands were confirmed. Citing a relevant case law, the Consultant urged the Tribunal to set aside the impugned order.The Consultant also highlighted that the details of Cenvat Credit were accurately reflected in the Monthly Returns, and a detailed response was provided to the Audit when issues were raised. Critically, it was argued that the Show Cause Notice issued after a delay of more than two years from making all documents available to the Audit department was legally unsustainable due to limitation.On the other hand, the Learned Authorized Representative emphasized that the irregular Cenvat Credit was discovered during audit verification, with specific items identified. The lower Authorities had considered all submissions before passing the order, as reiterated by the Representative.After hearing both sides and examining the documents, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Show Cause Notice, where objections were raised for only a few items without sufficient explanation for denying Cenvat Credit on all listed items. The lack of further verification or investigation by the Department post the detailed reply filed by the Appellant was also highlighted.It was observed that there was no dispute regarding the eligibility of Cenvat Credit based on the raised invoices, and no evidence was presented to challenge the Appellant's record-keeping or payment for the inputs used. Consequently, the Tribunal found the lower Authorities at fault for not addressing the item-wise details provided by the Appellant, leading to the allowance of the Appeal with any consequential relief as per law.