CESTAT Allows Perrigo Lab's ₹44.72 Lakh CENVAT Credit Refund Denied Over Clerical Invoice Error

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has recently allowed an appeal filed by Perrigo Laboratories India Pvt. Ltd., holding that part of its refund claim for unutilised CENVAT credit was wrongly rejected due to a clerical discrepancy in invoices.

A single-member bench of Judicial Member Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati set aside the order of the commissioner (appeals), Thane, which had denied a refund of Rs 44.72 lakh on the ground that the original invoice supporting the claim had not been produced.

“I am, therefore, of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to get the refund which is held to be inadmissible to it only for want of invoices,” the Tribunal observed, noting that the appellant was in possession of the invoices and that the discrepancy arose due to a clerical mistake in mentioning a consolidated figure instead of separate invoices.

Perrigo Laboratories, a 100% export-oriented unit providing scientific and technical consultancy services and business auxiliary services to overseas clients, had filed a refund claim of Rs 99.23 lakh under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for accumulated credit.

While part of the claim was sanctioned, the refund sanctioning authority rejected Rs 44.72 lakh, stating that the supporting invoice for the claim had not been produced.

Before the tribunal, the company explained that the disputed amount did not arise from a single consolidated invoice but from multiple invoices, which together accounted for the same amount.

The tribunal noted that these invoices were already reflected in the adjudicating authority's order-in-original. The rejection, it found, resulted from the appellant mentioning a consolidated figure instead of listing the individual invoices.

It also observed that the show cause notice proposed rejection only on the ground of non-availability of invoices and did not question the eligibility of the credit itself.

Allowing the appeal, the tribunal directed the department to the refund along with applicable interest within two months. 

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Shah, Chartered Accountant 

For Respondent: Shri Dhananjay Dahiwale, Deputy Commissioner (AR)