2014 (10) TMI 896 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit denied - demand confirmed along with interest and penalty on the ground that the said amount of Cenvat credit was inadmissible - Held that - As contended by appellants that the inputs were not cleared by them as such and were actually used for manufacture. It is only when some parts were found to be defective during manufacture or testing of the transmission equipment that such parts were re-exported for compensation/replacement and therefore provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be invoked inasmuch as the same relates to clearance of the inputs as such. We find that the Tribunal in an inter parties Final Order 2015 (5) TMI 93 - CESTAT NEW DELHI involving identical issue has decided in favour of the appellants and set aside a similar demand (for a different period). Following the precedent and for the reason like, we dispense with the pre-deposit and allow the appeal.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on defective parts exported for compensation/replacement during warranty period.

Analysis:
The case involved a stay petition and appeal filed by the assessee against an Order-in-Original confirming a demand for a specific period, alleging inadmissible Cenvat credit of a certain amount. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing transmission equipment, imported parts from their parent company in Sweden, taking Cenvat credit. During manufacturing, some parts were found defective and exported back to the supplier during the warranty period for compensation or replacement. The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority held that Cenvat credit on these defective parts exported needed to be reversed, which the assessee had not done. The appellants argued that since the defective parts were not cleared but used in manufacturing, Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, relating to clearance of inputs, should not apply.

The Tribunal referred to a previous Final Order involving a similar issue and decided in favor of the appellants, setting aside a similar demand for a different period. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants in the current case, allowing the appeal and dispensing with the pre-deposit requirement. The decision was based on the interpretation that the Cenvat credit reversal requirement did not apply to parts used in manufacturing but exported for compensation or replacement due to defects during the warranty period.