TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and has also been availing Cenvat credit on input services in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of audit of the appellant's record for the period from October 2006 to December 2007, it was noticed that the appellant has procured A.O.D. Gas Mixing Set, vide Invoice No. 3190 dated 01.02.2005 from M/s. R.L. Steels Ltd. and have availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on the said capital goods, however, has not followed Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was also not complied with. The Show Cause Notice bearing No. 15-85/2009 dated 27/30.03.2009 was issued to the appellant proposing the following: (i) Recovery of Cenvat credit amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 246/2010 dated 15.09.2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal. The said appeal bearing No. E/3882/2010 was disposed of vide Final Order No. 55227/2016 dated 21.11.2016 holding as follows: "2. I find that such technical objections raised by Revenue would not result in denial of the credit if otherwise established that the inputs were received by the appellant and were utilized in the manufacture of their final products. Once, the said fact is established, the substantive benefit of cenvat credit cannot be denied. However, for arriving at a finding that there is no dispute about the receipt of the inputs, the matters needs verification, for which purpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 218-22-23 dated 14.03.2023. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Shri Ankur Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Kuldeep Rawat, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Cenvat credit has been confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellant have not submitted any documentary evidence as that of raw material account, capital goods accounts, party ledger, transport ledger etc. in order to establish actual receipt of goods in their factory premises. It is submitted that a verification report by the Jurisdictional Range Officer in this regard was brought to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the appellants were well before Commissioner (Appeals) and have duly been dealt with. Learned Departmental Representative has relied upon the decision in the case of Neelkanth Steel & Agro Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported as 2015 (317) ELT 322 (Tri.-Del.). Impressing upon no infirmity in the order under challenge, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard both the parties and perusing the entire records, I observe and hold as follows: 5.1 At the first round of litigation, it was already observed by the Tribunal that in case it is established that the inputs were received by the appellant and were utilized in manufacture of their final products, the substantial benefit of Cenvat credit c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy held the entitlement to avail Cenvat credit in case the inputs are received by the appellant. In totality of this discussion, the findings arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the Cenvat casually for want of documents are not sustainable. 5.2 Coming to the disallowance of Cenvat credit for want of complete particulars in the invoices. It is an undisputed fact that the address mentioned on the invoices was incomplete. To my understanding that is nothing beyond a procedural lapse to deny substantial benefit as that of Cenvat credit. I rely upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad Vs. Majestic Auto Ltd. reported as 2008 (230) ELT 151 (Tri.-Del.), wherein it was held that ....