Cenvat credit on supplementary invoices upheld where no fraud or suppression was proved; related penalties also fell away.

Supplementary invoices issued for differential duty remained valid for Cenvat credit where the Revenue did not establish that the duty became recoverable because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under Rule 57AE(1)(i). The differential duty had been paid pursuant to valuation objections, and the supplier's invoices were therefore admissible documents for additional credit; the credit denial was unsustainable. Because the penalties were based on the same unproven allegations and the failed denial of credit, the foundation for penal action also disappeared. The impugned orders were set aside and the assessee was granted relief on both credit eligibility and consequential penalty liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on supplementary invoices issued for differential duty paid by the input suppliers under Rule 57AE(1)(i) of the Central Excise Rules when the duty was not shown to have become recoverable by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; (ii) whether penalties imposed on the assessee-units and their officers were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on supplementary invoices issued for differential duty paid by the input suppliers under Rule 57AE(1)(i) of the Central Excise Rules when the duty was not shown to have become recoverable by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The differential duty had been paid by the supplier units pursuant to valuation objections, and the record did not establish that the duty became recoverable because of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The Revenue failed to rebut the specific stand taken in reply to the show cause notices that the supplementary invoices were not hit by the exception in Rule 57AE(1)(i). In such circumstances, the supplementary invoices remained valid documents for availing additional credit. The fact that some inputs moved between units of the same manufacturer also supported the availability of credit to the recipient units.

Conclusion: Credit on the supplementary invoices was admissible and the denial of Cenvat credit was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties imposed on the assessee-units and their officers were sustainable.

Analysis: The penalties were founded on the same denial of credit and on allegations of suppression and related misconduct, but those allegations were not established for applying the exception under Rule 57AE(1)(i). Once the credit denial failed, the foundation for the penalties also disappeared.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed on the assessee-units and their officers were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed by granting the assessee full relief on credit eligibility and consequential penalty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Supplementary invoices supporting additional credit are valid unless the Revenue proves that the differential duty became recoverable by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; in the absence of such proof, denial of credit and consequential penalties cannot stand.

---