2012 (3) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6(5) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that - the appellants had themselves taken a ground in their appeal that they are entitled for credit of the part of the amount reversed earlier, they cannot now take recredit of the same without a specific relief having been granted to them in this regard by the Tribunal - The right course of action for the appellants is to seek redressal in the appropriate higher judicial forum, if they are aggrieved by the earlier order of the Tribunal, which according to them has not granted them specific relief which they had sought in their grounds of appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of the appellants for recredit of a reversed amount under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Validity of appellants taking suo moto credit without a specific relief granted by the Tribunal.
3. Appellants' right to seek redressal in a higher judicial forum.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal previously set aside a demand against the appellants, considering the reversal of an amount of credit on input services. The present appeal concerns the appellants recrediting a portion of the reversed amount on their own, claiming eligibility under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants argued that the services in question were specially listed. However, the Tribunal did not make a decision on this matter in the earlier round.

2. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellants were not entitled to take suo moto credit without a specific relief from the Tribunal. Citing legal precedents, the DR argued that a refund claim should have been filed instead of taking recredit independently. The Tribunal found that the appellants had already raised the issue of eligibility for recredit in their initial appeal but no decision was given by the Tribunal at that time.

3. The Tribunal held that the appellants cannot unilaterally recredit the reversed amount without a specific relief granted by the Tribunal. Despite the appellants raising the issue in their appeal, the absence of a Tribunal decision does not authorize them to take recredit independently. The Tribunal advised the appellants to pursue redressal in a higher judicial forum if they disagreed with the previous order. Consequently, the present appeal was dismissed, granting the appellants the liberty to seek remedy in an appropriate forum regarding the unresolved grounds of appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of obtaining specific relief from the Tribunal before taking independent action, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures and avenues for seeking redressal in case of disagreement with Tribunal decisions.