2015 (11) TMI 507 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Respondent availed Cenvat Credit on duty on the strength of these invoices issued by M/s. JOPL. Later on M/s. JOPL failed to comply with certain formalities as per CBEC manual and supplementary instructions 2005. The registration certificate was revoked on 21.09.2010. As the registration certificate was revoked therefore it was held against the respondent that they have not complied with the conditions of Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 as they have not verified the antecedents of the supplier of the goods who was not having registration certificate - Held that - At the time of issuance of the invoices to the respondent M/s. JOPL was having registration certificate and registration number was allotted to them on 12.08.2010 which was revoked later on. Therefore as at the time when the supplier of the goods had supplied the goods to the respondent was having valid registration. In these circumstances respondent has complied with the conditions of Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. In these circumstances I hold that respondent has taken the Cenvat Credit correctly on the invoices issued by M/s. JOPL during the intervening period. - No infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the respondent is entitled to Cenvat Credit based on invoices issued by a supplier whose registration certificate was later revoked.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of Cenvat Credit to the respondent based on invoices issued by a supplier, M/s. JOPL, whose registration certificate was revoked. The Revenue contended that the respondent did not comply with Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 as they failed to verify the antecedents of M/s. JOPL. The Revenue argued that the respondent should not be entitled to take Cenvat Credit as the supplier did not have a valid registration certificate during the impugned period.

The Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and analyzed the undisputed facts of the case. It was established that M/s. JOPL applied for registration on 12.08.2010 and was allotted a registration number on the same day. However, M/s. JOPL could not comply with the formalities, leading to the revocation of their registration on 21.09.2010. Despite this, M/s. JOPL had supplied goods to the respondent during this period based on Cenvitable invoices.

The Tribunal noted that at the time of supplying goods, M/s. JOPL had a valid registration certificate, which was later revoked. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the respondent had complied with the conditions of Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 by taking Cenvat Credit based on the invoices issued by M/s. JOPL during the intervening period. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (A) in favor of the respondent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no infirmity with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, ruling in favor of the respondent's entitlement to Cenvat Credit based on the invoices issued by M/s. JOPL during the period in question.