CENVAT

CESTAT, Delhi Bench

Shyam Forgings

v.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

P. K. DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER

EXCISE APPEAL NO. 3136 OF 2005 – SM (BR)

FINAL ORDER NO. 1528/07 SM (BR)

August 22, 2007

Rule 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 – Conditions for allowing cenvat credit – In puts were received by assessee on alleged invoice was entered in RG. 23 Part I, register on 18-8-2002 – However, it availed cenvat credit vide RG-23A Part II against same invoice on 30-6-2003 – Cenvat credit was denied to assessee on ground that it was not as per rule 4(1) – However, it was found that assessee had recorded receipt of inputs immediately in its RG 23A Part I register and said credit had been taken on basis of duty paying document and adjudicating authority had also verified use of inputs in finished goods – Whether in view of above facts there was no reason to deny credit on ground of delay in taking credit in RG 23A Part II register – Held, yes [Para 4]

FACTS

A show cause notice was issued proposing to disallow cenvat credit availed by assessee. It had been alleged that the assessee availed cenvat credit vide RG-23A, Part II dated 30-6-2003 against invoice dated 17-8-2002. It was contended by the assessee that the inputs covered by the said invoice were received by it and entered in RG 23 Part I on 18-8-2002. Subsequently, the input was sent to job worker for processing on 19-8-2002. The adjudicating authority allowed the credit and dropped the proceedings. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the revenue holding that the appellant has not taken the credit in accordance with rule 4(1).

On appeal:

HELD

It was seen that the assessee had recorded the receipt of the goods in the statutory registry namely RG-23A Part I immediately upon receipt of the inputs. Rule 4(1) provides that the Cenvat credit inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer. In the instant case, the assessee recorded the receipt of inputs immediately in their RG 23A Part I register. Both the authorities below observed that the inputs had been properly accounted for in their RG 23 A Part I register and credit taken on the basis of duty paying document. The adjudicating authority verified use of inputs in the finished goods. So there was no reason to deny the credit on the ground of delay to take credit in RG 23 A Part II register. [Para 4]

In view of the above facts, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was to be set aside and the adjudication order was to be restored. The appeal was to be allowed. [Para 5]