Procedural lapses cannot be ground for denying substantive benefits


Quick Summary
The CESTAT, Kolkata has ruled that minor procedural errors should not prevent businesses from claiming substantive benefits, such as CENVAT credit. In this case, the tribunal set aside an order that denied credit to M/s. S. L. Polypack Private Limited. The tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the limitation period and that the alleged defects were merely procedural, not affecting the duty-paying nature or utilisation of the goods.

Court :
CESTAT, Kolkata

Brief :
The CESTAT, Kolkata in the matter of M/s. S. L. Polypack Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate [Excise Appeal No.75342 of 2018 dated January 20, 2023] set aside the order denying CENVAT Credit to the assessee and held that, procedural lapses cannot be a ground for denying substantive benefits to the assessee. Further held that, the Show Cause Notice ("SCN") issued before the passing of such order was barred by limitation.

Citation :
Excise Appeal No.75342 of 2018 dated January 20, 2023

The CESTAT, Kolkata in the matter of M/s. S. L. Polypack Private Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate [Excise Appeal No.75342 of 2018 dated January 20, 2023] set aside the order denying CENVAT Credit to the assessee and held that, procedural lapses cannot be a ground for denying substantive benefits to the assessee. Further held that, the Show Cause Notice ("SCN") issued before the passing of such order was barred by limitation.

Facts

M/s. S. L. Polypack Private Limited ("the Appellant") is a manufacturer of plastic cup and plates. The Appellant had received some input goods under the cover of input invoices issued by one M/s. L. G. Polymers India Ltd. for the period of 2007-08 and 2008-09, and had utilized the same in the manufacture of finished products and the finished goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty. The Appellant had taken credit duty on the said inputs.

A SCN was issued to the Appellant dated August 1, 2013 ("the Impugned SCN") proposing to recover CENVAT Credit amounting to INR 1,50,194/- on the allegations that the input invoices did not mention the credit registration number of the consignee and registration number of the carrier vehicle and the delivery of goods was made at a place other than the factory of the Appellant. The Revenue Department ("the Respondent") alleged that the credit was taken by the Appellant on the basis of ineligible documents. 

The Appellant, in their reply to the Impugned SCN, stated that the defects pointed out by the Respondent were technical or procedural lapses but there was no dispute in duty paying character of the goods, receipt of the goods and utilization of the same in the manufacture of the finished products and it submitted that technical lapses cannot stop it from claiming benefits. However, the Respondent vide order dated July 3, 2014 ("the Impugned Order") denied credit and also imposed penalty upon the Appellant. On Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision in the Impugned Order. 

The Appellant contended that it had given the registration number, which was allotted to them prior to the allotment of PAN based registration number. Further, that non-mentioning of the vehicle number is a minor procedural error and it cannot be the ground for denying credit. Further, the Circular No. 441/7/99 – CX, dated February 23, 1999 ("the Impugned Circular") had clarified that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied for minor procedural lapses. Further, the demand was barred by limitation as the period of dispute was 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the Impugned SCN was issued on August 1, 2013.

Issue

Whether the Impugned SCN and the Impugned Order are sustainable?

Held

The CESTAT, Kolkata in Excise Appeal No.75342 of 2018 held as under:

  • Observed that, there was no dispute with regard to the place of delivery of the goods and the goods were received at the factory and accordingly the Impugned Order denying CENVAT Credit is not correct and the Excise Duty was paid on those goods which are subject matter of the invoices. 
  • Stated that, guidelines have been issued in the Impugned Circular, that SCN should not be issued for procedural lapses without making proper enquiries and efforts should be made to reduce litigations.
  • Noted that, the Impugned SCN was issued much after the expiry of the normal period.
  • Held that, substantive benefits cannot be denied on procedural grounds and accordingly the Impugned Order cannot be sustained.
  • Further held that, the Impugned SCN was barred by limitation.
  • Set aside the Impugned Order.
     

FAQ :

The main issue was whether procedural lapses in documentation could be used to deny a business its substantive benefits, specifically CENVAT credit, and whether the demand was time-barred.

The CESTAT ruled that substantive benefits cannot be denied solely on the grounds of procedural lapses or technical errors.

No, the CESTAT found that the Show Cause Notice was barred by limitation as it was issued long after the period of dispute (2007-08 and 2008-09).

The alleged lapses included the input invoices not mentioning the consignee's credit registration number and the carrier vehicle's registration number, and goods being delivered to a place other than the factory.

The CESTAT set aside the order that denied CENVAT credit and imposed a penalty, allowing the company to claim the substantive benefits.

 



Judgement posted by

Service

FCA, FCS LLB with21 Yrs of Experience inTaxation Indirect and Direct: Education Qualification: B.Com (Hons) Chartered Accountants Company Secretary LLB Qualified SAP FI/CO Consultants Professional Membership: Chairmanof Indirect Tax Committee of PHD Chamber of Commerce Member of Indirec ... Read more

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
ARTICLESHIP 23 October 2026
CA Articleship / Article Assistant

M N Rao & Associates LLP

Vijayawada

CA Inter

View Details
Company
14 October 2026
Accountant

Rize.farm

Bengaluru

B.Com

View Details
Company
10 October 2026
Accounts Associate Level 1

Abic and Mani Chartered Accountants

Kottayam

B.Com

View Details
Company
23 October 2026
Sr. Accountant

SANKARAN & KRISHNAN

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 07 October 2026
Article Assistant

Malhotra Rajesh & Associates

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 25 October 2026
Article Intern (CA Articleship)

Arpan Bohra & Co

Hyderabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
08 October 2026
Accounts and Tax Associate

POOJA R TELI & CO

Pune

CA Inter

View Details
Company
Featured ARTICLESHIP 06 October 2026
Semi Qualified

AJAY SINGH AND CO LLP

Thane

CA Final

View Details