2015 (8) TMI 1328 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Export of goods under bond - Disallowance of the Cenvat credit - Not following the proper procedure of filing monthly ER 1 returns under procedures relating to exports under Notification No. 41/2001-C.E., - Held that - Cenvat credit cannot be denied in respect of duty paid inputs as consumed under the goods exported in bond. As such, cenvat credit denied on the ground that the respondent availed Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. is not correct - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of the respondent for cenvat credit under Notification No. 8/2003.
2. Alleged procedural irregularities in filing monthly ER 1 returns.
3. Dispute regarding the denial of cenvat credit by the Revenue.
4. Examination of grounds by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Revenue's appeal.

Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Cenvat Credit: The case involved a dispute over the eligibility of the respondent for cenvat credit under Notification No. 8/2003. The Revenue contended that the respondent did not meet all the conditions of the exemption notification and, therefore, should not be entitled to avail cenvat credit. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) examined the grounds presented by the Revenue and concluded that the export of goods by the respondent was not disputed. He held that cenvat credit cannot be denied for duty paid inputs consumed in goods exported in bond. The Commissioner found no evidence of evasion of Central Excise duty or wrongful utilization of cenvat credit by the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the grounds presented did not contradict the Commissioner's findings.

2. Procedural Irregularities: The Revenue alleged procedural irregularities, including the failure to file monthly ER 1 returns and delayed submission of proof of export by the respondent. Despite these contentions, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence on record to suggest that the respondent had evaded Central Excise duty or misutilized cenvat credit. The original authority's findings indicated no contravention of Rule 4(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As a result, the Commissioner concluded that the cenvat credit was rightfully taken by the respondent.

3. Dispute Over Denial of Cenvat Credit: The Revenue contested the denial of cenvat credit by arguing that the respondent had not opted out of the SSI exemption and had not fulfilled all conditions of the exemption notification. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed and allowed the appeal, setting aside the original order disallowing the cenvat credit. The Commissioner's decision was based on the finding that the respondent's export of goods was not exempted clearance, and therefore, cenvat credit could not be denied for duty paid inputs utilized in the exported goods.

4. Examination of Grounds: Upon examination of the appeal papers and submissions by the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal found no specific legal or factual issues that contradicted the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision that the respondent was eligible for cenvat credit and had not engaged in any wrongful utilization of the credit. The impugned order was upheld, and there was no basis for interference with the Commissioner's decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed in the case and the reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.