TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1087
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces were issued alleging irregular availment CENVAT Credit on the basis of ineligible documents namely supplementary invoice/debit notes issued by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. (in short 'TSL') in violation of provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 during the impugned periods. 2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the Show Cause Notices are that during the course of audit of the records of the Appellant, it appeared that they availed irregular CENVAT Credit on the basis of invoices/debit notes issued by TSL. It was alleged that such credit was taken without having actually received the goods. It is the case of the Department that such supplementary invoice/debit notes issued by TSL appeared to be not a valid document ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y when final cost was known to TSL, they paid the differential excise duty and raised debit notes for the differential duty. On receipt of the debit notes/supplementary invoices, the Appellant availed CENVAT Credit of excise duty, which is under dispute in this Appeal. The adjudicating authority vide adjudication orders confirmed the recovery of irregularly availed CENVAT Credit and ordered for payment of interest and also a penalty of equal amount under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide orders impugned herein upheld the demands confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee filed these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. TSL further confirmed that they had issued annexure to the debit notes/supplementary invoices listed in the annexure to the said certificate giving details of the corresponding original invoices relating to the said debit notes/supplementary invoices during the relevant period and all of them were covered by the aforesaid provisional assessments. (iv) The lower authorities grossly erred in ignoring the fact that the Range officer had verified all the invoices and debit notes and his certification should have been read together with the certificate issued by M/s. Tata Steel. (v) A combined reading of the certificate issued by M/s. TSL and the range Officer would clearly show that the debit notes/supplementary invoices in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat in their case for an earlier period, this Tribunal has dealt with the issue vide Final Order No. 75258 of 2023 dated 27.04.2023 wherein the CENVAT Credit was allowed to the appellant. 5. We have also gone through the impugned orders wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as under: - "6.01 I find that the Order in Original No.14/Denovo./Addl Commr/2021 dated 30.11.2021 has been issued as per direction contained in this office Order-in-Appeal No. 68/JSR/2017 dated 14.06.2017The Original Adjudicating Authority was directed to correlate these original invoices and Combined Advice and Invoice/Debit Notes and result of such verification was to be communicated by way of speaking order to the Appellant. I find that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actory and used in the manufacture of final products hence Cenvat cannot be allowed on such differential duty. Therefore, I find that it is not conclusively established that the impugned cases were under provisional assessment and that the debit notes in question were of the nature supplementary invoices issued in consequence of said assessment. Also in absence of such correlation the condition laid down in Rule 9(1)(b) i.e such duty has not been paid on account of any non-levy or short levy by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of Act or Rule cannot be examined." (impugned Order-in-Appeal dtd. 20.07.2022) 6. Although the appellant has produced all the doc....