2013 (11) TMI 1194 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of Additional Custom Duty Inputs Found Defective and Returned - Whether additional custom duty availed as Cenvat credit by the appellant paid on inputs imported and used in the manufacture is reversible Held that - Appellant contended that there is no provision in law to ask for reversal once the inputs are used in the manufacture Relying upon M/s. Asahi India Safety Glass Limited vs. UOI 2004 (9) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI - the matter requires in depth inquiry during elaborate hearing stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Reversibility of additional custom duty availed as Cenvat credit on defective inputs used in manufacturing.

Analysis:
The appeal in question revolves around the issue of whether the additional custom duty availed as Cenvat credit by the appellant on inputs imported and used in manufacturing is reversible when found to be defective and returned to the supplier. The appellant argues that there is no provision in the law for such reversal once the inputs have been utilized in the manufacturing process. This contention is supported by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a previous case. On the other hand, the Revenue contends that the appellant, by using the component without testing it, is not entitled to the credit. Additionally, they argue that if defects were not identified before use and not returned within 180 days, reversal of Cenvat credit becomes necessary.

The Tribunal acknowledges that a thorough examination is essential to address various aspects of the case during a detailed hearing. These aspects include the conditions of the purchase order and any warranty clause, the necessity of testing for returning defective goods as per the contract, the existence of a testing system before use in manufacturing by the appellant for components enjoying Cenvat credit, whether the defective goods underwent quality testing by the overseas supplier before dispatch, and communication between the parties regarding defects noticed after receiving the consignment but before use.

Given the complexity and the need for detailed inquiry into both factual evidence and legal aspects, the Tribunal decides to refrain from directing pre-deposit at this stage. The appellant provides a copy of a stay order indicating a waiver of pre-deposit, and based on mutual agreement, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived until a specified date to facilitate expeditious hearing of the matter. Consequently, both miscellaneous and stay applications are disposed of, and the parties are notified for the upcoming hearing date.