of

Ld.Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals). The facts of the

case in brief are that the Appellant is a manufacturer of Plastic Cups

and Plastic Plates falling under Tariff Item No.39231090 of the Central

Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 2007-08 and 2008-09, the

Appellant had received some inputs viz. Plastic Granules under the

cover of input invoices issued by M/s. L.G. Polymers India Ltd. The

Appellant received the goods in their factory and utilized the same in

the manufacture of their finished products and finished goods were

cleared on payment of appropriate duty. The Appellant had taken credit

of duty paid on the said inputs. Show Cause Notice dated 01.08.2013

was issued proposing to recover CENVAT Credit amounting to

Excise Appeal No.75342 of 2018

2

Rs.1,50,194/- on the allegation that invoices does not mention credit

registration number of the consignee, registration number of the carrier

vehicle and delivery of the goods was made at a place other than the

factory. It is the case of the Revenue that credit was taken on the basis

of ineligible documents which resulted in contravention of Rule 9 of the

CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In their reply to the Show Cause Notice the

Appellant submitted that the defects pointed out are technical and/or

procedural lapses, but there is no dispute in respect of other things like

duty paying character of the goods, receipt of the goods and utilization

of the same in the manufacture of the finished products. It was their

submission that technical lapses cannot stand in the way of extending

the benefit to them. However, the Ld.Adjudicating authority vide Order-

in-Original dated 03.07.2014 denied the credit and also imposed

penalty.

On

Appeal,

Ld.Commissioner(Appeals)

upheld

adjudication order and rejected the Appeal before him. Hence the

present Appeal before this Tribunal.

2.

Ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that

the Appellant had given registration number, which was allotted to

them prior to the allotment of PAN based registration number. Non-

mentioning of the vehicle number is a minor procedural lapse which

cannot be a ground for denying credit. He further submits that it is not

in dispute that goods were received in the factory which has been

accepted by the authorities below, but inferred from the Challans with

the invoice that the goods were delivered at 4, Fairlie Place, Kolkata

which was their registered office and which cannot be a ground for

denying the credit more particularly when the invoices show the

address of the Appellant’s factory. The Department has not attached

any such challan as relied upon documents along with the Show Cause

Notice. The Ld.Advocate vehemently argued that the authorities below

did not consider the Board’s Circular No.441/7/99-CX dated 23.02.1999

dated 23.02.1999 clarifying that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied for

minor procedural lapses. He also submitted that the demand is barred

by limitation since the period of dispute is 2007-08 and 2008-09 and

Excise Appeal No.75342 of 2018

3

Show Cause Notice was issued on 01.08.2018 on scrutiny of records by

the Audit Team. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case

of EEI Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal [2017

(49) S.T.R. 159 (Tri.-Del.)]. He also filed copies of the monthly return

filed under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 wherein all the

invoices have been accounted for.

3.

Ld.Authorized Representative for the Department justified the

impugned orders and prayed that the Appeal filed by the Appellant may

be rejected being devoid of any merit.

4.

Heard both sides and perused the Appeal records.

5.

I find that the issue is no more res integra and is already settled

in favour of the Appellant in various cases cited by them. It is

undisputed that the goods covered under the invoices were actually

received at the Appellant’s factory and those goods were used for

manufacture of their final products. It is also undisputed