2023 (8) TMI 655 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows cenvat credit based on goods receipt and usage at factory location

M/s Anvil Cables Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur

The Tribunal held that despite discrepancies in invoice addresses, the appellant correctly availed cenvat credit as goods were received and used at the ... CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - denial of credit on the ground that address in the invoices is not mentioned of their Gamharia Unit and in the invoices, the address is mentioned of the Head Office - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been dealt by the adjudicating authority in their own case for the subsequent period, wherein the adjudicating authority has observed Since, all the goods are covered by duty paying documents involved in Show Cause Notice which have been duly received in the premises of the assessee and has been accounted for under respective documents, where utilities manufacture of dutiable goods, hence the error in address mentioned in duty paying document only is technical in nature and therefore condonable. Further, it is an admitted fact that although the invoices were in the name of their Head Office, but the goods have been received in the factory at Gamharia Unit, which is registered with the Central Excise Department and the same has been used by the appellant for manufacture of their final product, which suffered duty. The appellant has correctly taken the cenvat credit on the impugned invoices - there are no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether CENVAT credit can be denied where invoices bear the address of the head office/another unit instead of the manufacturing unit that actually received and used the inputs. 2. Whether a show-cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation is sustainable where the dispute concerns alleged technical deficiencies in duty-paying documents (invoice address/ECC details) but the inputs are shown to have been received and utilized by the factory. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Denial of CENVAT credit because invoice bears head office/other unit address Legal framework: Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - no CENVAT credit shall be taken unless the prescribed particulars under Central Excise Rules, 2002 are contained in the document; proviso permitting allowance of credit where, although the document lacks some particulars, it contains details of duty payable, description, assessable value, registration number of person issuing invoice, and name and address of factory/warehouses/first or second stage dealers or provider of taxable service, and the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that goods/services covered have been received and accounted for in the receiver's books. Precedent treatment: The adjudicating authority in a subsequent, factually similar matter accepted that technical errors in address/ECC on invoices are condonable when inputs are duly received and accounted for; the tribunal heard references to several authorities (listed by appellant) supporting allowance when inputs are actually received and used. The adjudicator's earlier order relied on the proviso to Rule 9(2) and on prior departmental decisions treating address errors as technical and waivable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal adopted the approach that where goods under duty-paying documents are in fact received at the registered manufacturing unit (evidenced by RG-23 entries, transport permits, transport documents, goods receipt notes and utilization in manufacture) the deficiency of listing the head office or old address on invoices is a technical infirmity. The Registrar/Adjudicator's satisfaction as envisaged by the proviso to Rule 9(2) can be demonstrated by documentary proof of receipt and accounting (transport permits, RG-23 entries, goods receipt notes, certification of utilization). The Registrar's prior finding that suppliers were maintaining an old address and had endorsed/diverted goods to the manufacturing unit reinforced that the address error was inadvertent/technical and not substantive. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where inputs covered by duty-paying documents are shown to have been received and accounted for at the registered manufacturing unit and used in manufacture of dutiable goods, CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely on the ground that the invoice bears an incorrect address (head office/old address); the proviso to Rule 9(2) permits allowance upon satisfaction of receipt/accounting. Obiter - Observations about the consigner's maintenance of old address and general statements on departmental practice serve as supporting commentary but are ancillary to the dispositive rule application. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the appellant correctly availed CENVAT credit on invoices bearing head office/other unit address because the inputs were received at the registered manufacturing unit, properly accounted for and utilized in manufacture; the address defect was technical and condonable under Rule 9(2) proviso, therefore credit must be allowed. Issue 2 - Validity of show-cause notice invoking extended period of limitation where defect is technical and inputs received/used Legal framework: Principles governing limitation for recovery/demand under excise law (extended period invocations) and interplay with substantive entitlement to credit; Rule 9(2) proviso permitting allowance where receipt/accounting is established and the adjudicator is satisfied. Precedent treatment: The appellant argued invalidity of the extended-period notice; the Tribunal noted the contention but addressed the substantive entitlement on merits by applying Rule 9(2) and departmental precedents where similar notices/objections were dropped when receipt and utilization were established. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal did not rest its decision on procedural limitation grounds but effectively treated the extended-period invocation as immaterial where documentary evidence satisfactorily established receipt and utilization of inputs at the registered factory. The adjudicator's acceptance in a similar case (and departmental dropping of later show-cause) shows administrative recognition that technical infirmities should not sustain demands via extended period where substantive receipt/use is proved. The Court's reasoning emphasizes substance over form: proof of receipt and utilization defeats the department's technical objection irrespective of the period invoked to raise the notice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Even if a show-cause notice relies on extended limitation, where the factual and documentary record establishes receipt, accounting and use of inputs at the registered manufacturing unit, the substantive entitlement to CENVAT credit prevails and the technical basis for invoking extended period cannot support denial. Obiter - The appellant's contention that the show-cause notice is not sustainable per se was noted but not independently adjudicated as dispositive; the Tribunal disposed the matter on substantive credit entitlement. Conclusion: The Tribunal did not sustain the demand raised by the extended-period show-cause; instead it allowed the appeal on substantive grounds - technical defects in invoice address cannot justify denial of credit when inputs are received and used at the registered factory. Consequently, the impugned order denying credit and imposing recovery, interest and penalty was set aside. Cross-references See Issue 1 analysis and Rule 9(2) proviso: the Tribunal's conclusion on limitation (Issue 2) is dependent on the satisfaction of conditions identified under Rule 9(2) - documentary proof of receipt, accounting and utilization of inputs at the registered unit, which renders address defects condonable.