2007 (6) TMI 101 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Revenue contended that respondent is not entitle for credit on the ground that the respondent had availed credit after the lapse of 11months, and also for not follow the procedure as laid down in the circular - Held that revenue contention was not justified and set aside

Summary

Issues involved: Disallowance of Cenvat credit due to lapse of time and procedural non-compliance.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of Cenvat credit to the respondent due to the availing of credit after a lapse of 11 months and non-compliance with procedural requirements. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand and imposed a penalty, which was set aside by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Revenue's appeal against the decision.

2. The argument presented by the ld. SDR focused on the necessity for respondents to provide a declaration as per the trade notice, emphasizing that the respondents failed to include the value of the stock in trade in their declaration. It was contended that availing credit after 11 months was incorrect and that a reasonable timeframe should be adhered to for Cenvat credit availment.

3. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate argued that there was no dispute regarding the stock declared by the respondents. It was asserted that the credit was availed after furnishing the complete value of the stock in trade and verification by Range Officers. The advocate supported the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that it rightfully granted the due benefit to the respondent.

4. Upon considering both sides' submissions and reviewing the records, it was established that the respondent was eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the raw material stock present in their factory premises as of a specific date. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the non-furnishing of the stock value was a procedural lapse, and the substantive benefit of the credit could not be denied based on technical shortcomings. Additionally, it was clarified that there was no restriction or timeframe for availing transitional credit, and compliance with immediate credit rules was not obligatory in this scenario.

5. The Tribunal upheld the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing that the transitional credit was legally due to the respondent and should not be denied solely based on delayed availing. As there were no grounds to suggest incorrect availing or utilization of the credit, recovery and penal provisions were deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal's precedent in similar cases supported the decision, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

6. The Tribunal affirmed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) appropriately applied the law established in previous decisions, indicating a consistent legal approach.

7. Consequently, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s order well-reasoned and declined to interfere, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.