Cenvat Credit Allowed Despite Non-Standard Challan Under Rule 9; Department Suspicion Insufficient for Denial

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal, holding that Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely because the party produced a challan not specified under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal noted that the issue of admissibility of alternative documents for credit is settled in favor of the assessee. The department's suspicion regarding the party's conduct at the Customs port does not justify disallowance of credit under excise law when the correctness of transactions is not disputed.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether Cenvat credit can be availed on the basis of challans for payment of differential customs duty that are not prescribed documents under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Whether the correctness of the underlying customs duty payment transactions affects the eligibility of Cenvat credit.Whether disallowance of Cenvat credit is justified solely on the basis of departmental doubts regarding the conduct of the party at the customs port.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Court held that Cenvat credit can be allowed on the basis of other duty paying documents, such as challans, even if they are not specifically prescribed under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, provided the underlying transaction is not doubted, as "customs duty paid through TR-6 challan has been held to be valid document under Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 in availing Cenvat Credit."The Court ruled that the department's non-denial of the correctness of the underlying transactions means the credit cannot be disallowed merely because the documents are not the stipulated ones under Rule 9.The Court found that doubts regarding the conduct of the party at the customs port or the timing of customs duty payment do not justify disallowance of credit on the excise side, stating "this is none of the concerns if wrong duty had been intended to be paid under Customs Act to disallow the credit on excise side."

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the legal framework under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically Rule 9 which prescribes documents for availing credit, and Rule 15 which deals with recovery and penalty for ineligible credit.The Court relied on precedent decisions where TR-6 challans and other non-prescribed documents were accepted as valid for availing Cenvat credit, demonstrating a settled position that the identity of the document is not determinative if the underlying duty payment is genuine.The Court emphasized that the department's concern over the timing or conduct related to customs duty payment at the port is irrelevant to the excise credit eligibility, marking a doctrinal clarification that credit disallowance cannot be based on suspicions about customs duty payment conduct.No dissenting or differing opinion was noted.

---