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.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
The appellant has taken the Cenvat Credit of Rs.83,839 on the basis of the Dealer’s invoice. The credit was taken in respect of of 2 invoices issued in the year 2011 and one invoice issued on 22.01.2014.
2. On the ground that the appellant has bought goods from a Dealer, who did not have Dealer’s Registration, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant seeking reversal of Rs.83,839. After due process, the lower authorities have confirmed the demand. Hence, the appellant is before the Tribunal.
3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant has received the invoices clearly showing the present appellant as the Consignee and the dealer M/s. Ashis Enterprise, as the Buyer. The goods have been directly despatched by M/s. Roshanlal Bhagirathmal with proper Dealer’s Invoice, based on which the appellant has taken the Cenvat Credit. The appellant has also properly accounted for the inputs in the RG 23A Part I as can be observed from the Invoices. The Dealer Ashish Enterprise has issued a separate Invoice so that the payment can be made by the appellant to him. The Invoice issued by Ashish can be correlated with the Dealer’s Invoice issued by Roshanlal Bharatmal. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed.
4. The Ld. Authorized Representative submits that the Ashish Enterprise has not taken the Dealer’s registration. The goods have been received from Roshanlal with this invoice, who is the main seller and the buyer is Ashsish, who has not issued the Dealer’s Invoice. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant has taken irregular cenvat credit. Therefore, he justifies the confirmed the demand.
5. Heard both the sides.
6. I have gone through the copy of the Invoices produced by the appellant. The sample copy is produced below:
7. From the above Invoice issued by Roshanlal Bhagirathmal, I find that the present appellant is shown as the Consignee. The buyer of the goods is mentioned as Ashis Enterprise. I observe that all the details required under an invoice to issued in terms of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 have been fulfilled in the invoice raised by the Roshanlal Bhagirathmal.
8. Further, there is no allegation that the goods in question have not been received by the appellant. It is seen that the appellant has accounted for the goods received in RG 23A part I, after the same is received at his factory.
9. Therefore, I do not find any case has been made out by the Revenue towards any contravention of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Hence, I set aside the demand and allow the appeal.
10. The appellant would be eligible for consequent relief if any, as per law.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)
