2016 (4) TMI 1199 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - whether on the amount not realized Cenvat credit is to be reversed? - Held that - When there is no mandate of the statute to direct reversal of the Cenvat credit already availed in respect of the Output Service provided and the consideration thereof not realised for which such receivable amount is written off as bad debt, the appellant cannot be directed to reverse proportionate Cenvat credit - Law is well settled that where tax paid has gone into the treasury, appellant is entitled to credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of Cenvat credit as a preliminary issue.
2. Whether Cenvat credit should be reversed due to non-realization of receivables.
3. Legal basis for directing reversal of Cenvat credit.
4. Entitlement to credit unless fraud is proven.
5. Applicability of apex court judgment in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the reversal of Cenvat credit, with the revenue arguing it as a preliminary issue. However, the appellant contended that the credit already taken should be reversed, not liability determined.

2. The background of the case involved non-realization of certain amounts receivable from service recipients, leading the revenue to claim that Cenvat credit should be reversed on the unreceived amount.

3. The Tribunal noted that the revenue failed to provide a legal basis for directing the reversal of Cenvat credit in cases where service receivables were not realized. As such, the matter was taken up for disposal as it did not involve a Division Bench issue.

4. It was established that in the absence of a statutory mandate to reverse Cenvat credit for unreceived consideration of output services, the appellant could not be compelled to reverse the credit. The law dictates that unless fraud is proven, the appellant is entitled to the credit, as affirmed in the apex court judgment in Collector of Central Excise, Pune Vs Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd.

5. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, affirming the appellant's position in law. Any consequential relief was to be granted as per the applicable legal provisions. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing clarity on the decision.