2012 (11) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit alleged that appellant has taken credit of duty paid on corrugated boxes twice Held that - when Revenue proposes to deny the credit on duty paid on corrugated boxes, on the ground that the value of corrugated boxes included in the value of pet bottles thereby the appellant can be said to have availed credit twice on corrugated boxes, in reality what is being done is to reassess the goods at the end of receiver, by proposing to reduce the value of pet bottles to the extent of value of corrugated boxes. There is no finding that the credit of duty taken by the appellant was not paid by them to the suppliers or suppliers had not paid duty, which was shown as duty in their invoice. If the credit has been taken twice, first time on the corrugated boxes themselves and second time as part of pet bottles being the packing materials, it cannot be said that appellants have benefited in any manner and further, as already stated, it cannot be said that credit has been taken twice. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Double availing of cenvat credit on corrugated boxes.
2. Permissibility of reassessing goods at the receiver's end.
3. Application of Tribunal and Court decisions.
4. Limitation for demanding cenvat credit.
5. Intention to suppress facts/mis-declaration.
6. Waiver of pre-deposit and disposal of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was accused of taking credit of duty paid on corrugated boxes twice, as they were sent directly to another entity for use in the manufacturing process. The Revenue argued that this amounted to a double benefit that was not admissible. However, the Tribunal found that the duty paid by the pet bottle manufacturer on the pet bottles and the duty paid by the corrugated boxes manufacturer were distinct. The value of corrugated boxes was correctly included in the assessable value of the goods, and the duty paid by the bottle manufacturer did not cover the duty on corrugated boxes. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue was not sustained.

2. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, such as MDS Switchgear Limited and V.G. Steel Industry, which held that goods cannot be reassessed at the receiver's end. In this case, denying credit on duty paid on corrugated boxes by reducing the value of pet bottles would amount to reassessing the goods at the end of the receiver, which was impermissible. The Tribunal found these decisions applicable to the current case and ruled in favor of the appellant.

3. The Tribunal also considered the limitation for demanding cenvat credit. It was noted that there was no evidence of intention to suppress facts or mis-declare, and no collusion was found. As the credit had been wrongly availed but not with fraudulent intent, the extended period of limitation for demanding cenvat credit was not applicable. Therefore, the Revenue failed to establish a case on the ground of limitation.

4. The Tribunal concluded that there was no benefit gained by the appellant from the alleged double availing of credit. Since the appellant had genuinely taken credit of duty paid by them, there was no intention to suppress facts or commit fraud. As a result, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, stating that there was nothing further to be decided in the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's reasoning for ruling in favor of the appellant.