2006 (11) TMI 47 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Alleged that appellant took credit on input as shown in the invoice of supplier but the discount avail later not shown - After considering all the details by the authority, demand for excess credit, penalty and interest not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of excess modvat/cenvat credit due to trade discounts.
2. Allegation of raising debit notes to suppliers to avail excess credit.
3. Denial of credit by jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.
4. Appellant's submission regarding correct cenvat credit.
5. Dispute over trade discounts and assessable value.
6. Department's demand for reversal of credit and penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The issue in this case revolves around the reversal of excess modvat/cenvat credit due to trade discounts passed on by suppliers at a later stage. The department alleged that the appellants raised debit notes to suppliers, intending to avail excess credit. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice for recovery of the excess credit availed, leading to the denial of credit and imposition of penalties.

2. The Ld. Commissioner found that the appellants had indeed taken modvat/cenvat credit on the higher value of goods before trade discounts were applied. The appellants issued debit notes to suppliers for the higher value initially recovered from them. This practice was considered a modus operandi for availing unauthorized benefits, leading to the denial of credit and penalty imposition by the authorities.

3. The appellants argued that they had correctly availed cenvat credit based on the duty amount mentioned in the Central Excise invoice of the supplier. They contended that there was no evidence to suggest unauthorized credit availed, as the assessable value declared in the invoices was not disputed. The appellants emphasized that trade discounts are a common commercial practice and do not affect duty payment if given after clearance and without reducing assessable value.

4. The appellate tribunal, after considering the contentions raised by the appellants, found merit in their arguments. It was noted that there was no loss to revenue in terms of duty payment by the supplier, as the assessable value was correct. The tribunal emphasized that as long as duty was paid correctly based on trade practices and mutual agreements, the department could not demand reversal of credit or disallowance, especially when the appellants had paid duty and taken credit equivalent to the invoice amount.

5. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the demand for reversal of credit and the penalties imposed were not sustainable. Both the original order and the order by the Ld. Commissioner were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants. The tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to trade practices and mutual agreements in determining the correctness of duty payment and credit availed.