2013 (11) TMI 1158 - AT - Central Excise

Admissibility of cenvat credit Duty paid on copper rods Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Prima facie, in the show cause notice, it is not disputed that the appellant had paid the duty on the copper rods which had not been used for manufacture of power cables for export and this duty had been paid by debit entry in the RG-23 Part-II Account - Once, the duty on the copper rods had been paid and it is not disputed, that the copper rods had been used in the manufacture of power cables which had been cleared on payment of duty - Prima facie, it would not be correct to deny the cenvat credit - The appellant have establish a strong prima facie case in their favour Thus the requirement of pre-deposit of cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:

1. Whether cenvat credit can be availed based on a debit entry in the RG-23 Part-II Account without the prescribed documents as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute regarding the appellant's eligibility to avail cenvat credit amounting to Rs.3,37,944/- on duty paid for copper rods used in manufacturing power cables that were cleared for domestic consumption instead of export. The appellant had paid the duty by debiting the RG-23 Part-II Account but faced a show cause notice for recovery of the cenvat credit, interest, and penalty. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that once duty is paid on goods, cenvat credit cannot be denied, emphasizing a strong prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

The appellant contended that the duty on copper rods, paid via debit entry in the RG-23 Part-II Account, should entitle them to cenvat credit, despite not following the specific documentation requirements of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant's position was that since the duty was paid on the goods and utilized in manufacturing power cables cleared for domestic consumption, denying cenvat credit would be unjustified. The appellant sought relief from the pre-deposit requirement, arguing that they had a strong case in their favor.

The respondent, represented by the Joint CDR, opposed the stay application, reiterating the stance taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent emphasized strict adherence to Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, stating that cenvat credit must align with the specified documentation provisions. The respondent argued that a mere debit entry in the RG-23 Part-II Account should not serve as the basis for availing cenvat credit, asserting that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case warranting waiver of pre-deposit requirements.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the judge, Shri Rakesh Kumar, found merit in the appellant's position. The judge noted that the duty on the copper rods had been paid and acknowledged that the rods were used in manufacturing power cables cleared with duty payment. In light of these facts, the judge opined that denying cenvat credit would be inappropriate. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant, waiving the pre-deposit requirement for the cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty. The judge granted a stay on the recovery pending the appeal's disposal, thereby allowing the appellant relief in this matter.