CENVAT credit on material handling equipment survives an incorrect invoice heading, while prior reversal defeats related penalty exposure.

CENVAT credit on trolleys used within the factory as material handling equipment is admissible where the goods are otherwise shown to fall within the eligible classification, even if the invoice mentions an incorrect tariff heading. Penalty linked to structural items cannot be sustained when the related credit was reversed before issue of the show-cause notice, because the basis for penalty is then absent. Credit on plastic crates was also accepted as reversed, leaving only limited dispute on that point. The stated principle is that an incorrect invoice heading alone does not defeat credit when the substantive use and classification support eligibility.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on trolleys used as material handling equipment was admissible despite the invoices mentioning an incorrect tariff heading; (ii) whether the penalty sustained in relation to structural items could be upheld after reversal of credit before the show-cause notice; (iii) whether the Revenue was entitled to deny credit on plastic crates and seek enhancement of penalty.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on trolleys used as material handling equipment was admissible despite the invoices mentioning an incorrect tariff heading.

Analysis: The trolleys were used within the factory for moving finished goods from the production stage to inspection and delivery points. Heading 84.28 is the specific tariff entry for material handling equipment, whereas Heading 94.03 covers furniture and parts thereof. The absence of contrary evidence from the department and the material from the manufacturer supported the claim that the goods were correctly classifiable as material handling equipment and that the wrong heading in the invoices was inadvertent.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the trolleys was admissible and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty sustained in relation to structural items could be upheld after reversal of credit before the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The penalty was linked to the assessee's admitted liability on structural items, but the credit had already been reversed before issuance of the show-cause notice. In such circumstances, the basis for sustaining the penalty was absent.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the Revenue was entitled to deny credit on plastic crates and seek enhancement of penalty.

Analysis: The challenge to penalty failed because the penalty issue had already been decided against the Revenue in the assessee's appeal. As to plastic crates, the assessee accepted reversal of the credit involved, which removed the basis for contest on that limited point.

Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded only to the limited extent of denial of credit on plastic crates and failed on the prayer for enhancement of penalty.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the principal credit and penalty issues, while the Revenue obtained only limited relief on the plastic-crates credit dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit on capital goods cannot be denied merely because the duty-paying document mentions an incorrect tariff heading, where the goods are otherwise shown to fall within the eligible classification and are used within the factory; a penalty based on such credit cannot survive after prior reversal before notice.

---