Cenvat credit requires a clear documentary nexus; wrongful availment sustained duty, interest, and company penalty, but not separate personal liability.

Cenvat credit requires proof that duty-paid inputs were actually received and that there is a clear documentary nexus between the goods and the duty-paying documents; where goods were received on challans or slips and the later invoices could not be reliably linked, the credit was disallowed and the duty demand with interest was upheld. The company's penalty under Section 11AC was sustained for wrongful availment of credit, but a separate penalty under Rule 13 was set aside because it duplicated the same default. Penalty on the Director was also set aside because no material showed personal knowledge, involvement, or intent to evade duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit was admissible when the inputs were received under challans or slips and the invoices were received later, or where the goods and duty-paying documents did not match; (ii) whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and separate penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were sustainable against the company; and (iii) whether penalty on the Director was justified.

Issue (i): whether Cenvat credit was admissible when the inputs were received under challans or slips and the invoices were received later, or where the goods and duty-paying documents did not match.

Analysis: The burden lay on the assessee to establish receipt of duty-paid goods with corresponding duty-paying documents. The record showed instances where goods were received under kaccha challans and the invoices were issued subsequently, without reliable documentary linkage between the goods received and the invoices relied upon. In the absence of proof that the goods covered by the later invoices were the same goods received by the assessee, the credit claim could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was not admissible and the demand of duty with interest was upheld, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and separate penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were sustainable against the company.

Analysis: The findings supported invocation of penal consequence for wrongful availment of credit, as the assessee failed to establish the requisite linkage between goods and documents. However, once penalty under Section 11AC was upheld for the same default, a separate penalty under Rule 13 on the company was not warranted on the facts.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was sustained, but the separate penalty under Rule 13 was set aside, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether penalty on the Director was justified.

Analysis: No specific evidence was shown to establish the Director's personal knowledge, involvement, or intention to evade duty. In the absence of material showing personal culpability, individual penal liability was not made out.

Conclusion: The penalty on the Director was not justified and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The principal duty demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC against the company were sustained, while the separate company penalty and the Director's penalty were removed, resulting in only partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit eligibility depends on proof of receipt of duty-paid goods supported by a clear documentary nexus, and separate personal penalty requires evidence of individual knowledge or intent to evade duty.

---