CESTAT allows refund claim on endorsed invoices under Rule 9(1)(a)(i) despite Commissioner's denial

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal and set aside the Commissioner's order regarding refund of duty paid and reversal of CENVAT credit based on diverted invoices. The tribunal held that endorsed invoices constitute proper documents for claiming Central Excise refund under Rule 9(1)(a)(i). Following Bombay HC precedent in a steel company case, the tribunal ruled that credit cannot be denied solely because invoices are endorsed, provided the duty-paid character of goods and their utilization in finished products are established. The tribunal distinguished earlier decisions and emphasized that mere endorsement does not alter the essential characteristics of validly issued invoices, allowing legitimate credit availment when all material requirements are met.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Endorsed Invoices
2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
3. Applicability of Previous Judgments and Notifications

Summary:

1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Endorsed Invoices:
The primary issue in this case was whether the appellant was eligible to avail Cenvat Credit based on endorsed invoices. The appellant had received sponge iron from M/s N. E. Thermion (P) Ltd. on endorsed invoices. The Revenue argued that the invoices were "diverted" and not proper documents for claiming Cenvat Credit under Rule 9(1)(a)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Authority initially allowed the credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, citing the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. Marigold Coatings Pvt. Ltd., which held that Cenvat Credit on endorsed invoices was not permissible.

2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The case hinged on the interpretation of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which outlines the documents on which Cenvat Credit can be taken. The appellant argued that the rule allows credit on invoices issued by a manufacturer for clearance of inputs or capital goods. The Adjudicating Authority supported this view, stating that as long as the duty-paid nature of the inputs and their receipt in the factory were undisputed, credit should be allowed, even on endorsed invoices. This view was supported by various judgments, including M/s. Gautam Weaving Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Deepthi Insulated Cables Vs. CCE.

3. Applicability of Previous Judgments and Notifications:
The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision, which was based on the Larger Bench's ruling in Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur, and Notification No. 32/94 dated 04/07/1994. These precedents held that invoices could only be issued by registered dealers post-1994. However, the appellant cited several cases, including Schlafhorst Engineering (I) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex & Cus. Vadodara and Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., which allowed credit on endorsed invoices under specific circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the duty-paid character of the goods and their utilization in the manufacture of finished goods were not in dispute, and substantial benefit could not be denied merely on the basis of an endorsed invoice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that substantial benefit could not be disallowed for an alleged irregularity pointed out by the department. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law. The Tribunal emphasized that an endorsed invoice does not alter the key essentials of a validly issued invoice, and the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat Credit.

---