Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex. (CESTAT Kolkata)
Summary: CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal filed by Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. and set aside the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit of Rs.83,839. The appellant had availed credit on the basis of three invoices, two issued in 2011 and one dated 22.01.2014. The Department sought reversal on the ground that the appellant had purchased the goods through M/s Ashis Enterprise, which did not possess dealer registration. The appellant contended that the invoices issued by M/s Roshanlal Bhagirathmal specifically showed Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd. as the consignee, while Ashis Enterprise was shown as the buyer. The goods were directly dispatched to the appellant and were duly accounted for in RG 23A Part I. Ashis Enterprise separately issued a commercial invoice to facilitate payment, which could be correlated with the invoice issued by Roshanlal Bhagirathmal. On examining the invoices, the Tribunal found that the appellant was expressly shown as the consignee and that all particulars required for an invoice under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were fulfilled. The Tribunal further noted that there was no allegation that the goods had not actually been received by the appellant. The goods had also been accounted for in RG 23A Part I after receipt at the appellant’s factory. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the Revenue had failed to establish any contravention of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The demand was accordingly set aside, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was held eligible for consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
