9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1477 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - Neptha, (Petro grade) - it was alleged that inputs was found short in stock for the period from April, 2003 to March, 2004 and therefore, the said input was not used in the manufacture of finished goods - Held that - Revenue has not disputed the shortage to the extent of 0.046% and the %age of shortage which is well within the permissible / tolerance limit as per Board circular dt 23.09.2002 - the shortage of inputs is insignificant percentage of storage and handling losses intended for use in the manufacture of final products and Cenvat credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Alleged contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 by wrongly availing credit on Neptha inputs found short in stock.
Analysis: 1. The case involved an allegation against the respondent for contravening Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 by wrongly availing Cenvat credit on Neptha inputs found short in stock for a specific period. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Revenue appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the adjudication order disallowing the appeal. 2. The respondent contended that the alleged shortage of Neptha was insignificant (0.046% of total stock) and considered a normal loss for which no Cenvat credit reversal was required. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the volatile nature of Neptha was not disputed, but the respondent failed to provide evidence to show the shortage was due to reasons beyond their control. However, the percentage of shortage fell within permissible limits according to CBEC Circular No.663/54/2002-CX, leading to the inference that the input was meant for the manufacture of final products. 3. The Revenue argued based on the Petroleum Manual's cumulative loss allowance, but it did not specifically mention Neptha. Despite this, the Tribunal referred to precedents where transportation-related losses were considered part of the manufacturing process, allowing duty credit on transit losses. Citing a Supreme Court case, it was highlighted that denial of exemption benefits due to transit losses was not justified if the inputs were intended for final product manufacturing but were lost in transit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and rejected the Revenue's appeal.
|
