Tribunal rules in favor of respondent on Cenvat credit for Steel Ingots

The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, ruling in favor of the respondent regarding the availability of Cenvat credit on Steel Ingots purchased from a Registered Dealer. The Tribunal found that the respondent had acted diligently in verifying the dealer's documents and should not be held liable for the manufacturer's duty non-payment. The decision emphasized that the department should pursue legal procedures to recover the duty from the manufacturer. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order-in-appeal allowing the Cenvat credit stood.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against availability of Cenvat credit on Steel Ingots purchased from a Registered Dealer.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order-in-appeal that allowed the respondents to avail Cenvat credit. The respondent had purchased Steel Ingots from a Registered Dealer who had procured the goods from another company, M/s. Mianji Steel, on duty paying documents. Upon investigation, it was discovered that M/s. Mianji Steel had not paid the duty on the goods. Consequently, the respondent received a show cause notice to reverse the credit availed on the goods. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty, but the appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

During the proceedings, the respondent did not appear despite notice. The Tribunal considered the case, noting that the respondent had obtained the inputs from a registered dealer with proper duty paying documents. The respondent fulfilled their contractual obligations by paying the invoice to the Registered Dealer. The rules governing credit availing require that the inputs must have incurred duty from the manufacturer. As the respondent purchased the goods from a registered dealer who provided a valid duty paying document, the Tribunal held that the respondent should not be held responsible for the manufacturer's duty payment. The respondent had verified the dealer's invoice authenticity and registration certificate validity, demonstrating due diligence in procuring duty-paid inputs. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that denying Cenvat credit based on the manufacturer's duty non-payment was unjustified, and the department should follow legal procedures to recover the duty from the manufacturer.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, stating that no intervention was necessary, and dismissed the appeal. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court, finalizing the decision.

---