Cenvat credit mismatch and transitional credit claims remanded for invoice-wise verification and reconsideration under the applicable circular.

Alleged excess Cenvat credit based on mismatch between the credit register and the ST-3 return required invoice-wise verification, because the apparent difference could stem from timing differences between accrual and return reporting; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on the underlying invoices. Cenvat credit taken in June 2017 on invoices issued in July 2017, during the transition from service tax to GST, also had to be re-examined in light of the circular relied on by the assessee and the relevant invoices; this issue was likewise remanded for fresh consideration. The impugned order was set aside and both credit-related issues were sent back for proper factual scrutiny.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged excess Cenvat credit based on mismatch between the credit register and the ST-3 return required confirmation or fresh verification; (ii) Whether the Cenvat credit taken in June 2017 on invoices issued in July 2017, in the transitional period from service tax to GST, was liable to be examined afresh in the light of the applicable circular.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged excess Cenvat credit based on mismatch between the credit register and the ST-3 return required confirmation or fresh verification.

Analysis: The discrepancy was treated by the appellate authority as conclusively established without examining the underlying invoices or the complete reconciliation placed by the appellant. The record indicated that the apparent difference could arise from timing differences between accrual in the credit register and reflection in the return, and the factual position needed verification against the invoices for the relevant months.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally decided on merits and was remanded for fresh adjudication after invoice-wise verification.

Issue (ii): Whether the Cenvat credit taken in June 2017 on invoices issued in July 2017, in the transitional period from service tax to GST, was liable to be examined afresh in the light of the applicable circular.

Analysis: The appellate authority had not dealt with the circular relied upon by the appellant. The issue arose in the transition from service tax to GST, and the circular cited by the appellant required consideration along with the relevant invoices to determine whether the credit was permissible.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh examination in the light of the circular and the relevant invoices.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh decision on both credit-related issues after proper factual scrutiny.

---