2014 (6) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Revenue denied the credit on the sole ground that there is no evidence of transportation of the goods from the premises of M/s Tata Motors to the appellant premises - Suo moto Credit - Revenue contends that refund claim should have been filed instead of availing Suo moto credit - Bar of limitation - Held that - demand stands raised on the scrutiny of the appellant s statutory documents itself, which shows that everything was recorded and there cannot be any mala fide. The appellants have also reflected the availment of the credit in their returns filed for the relevant period 2007-2008. Inasmuch as the re-entry was made in December 2007 and the notice stands issued on 8.3.2010 - Demand barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit for duty availed on rejected goods.
2. Dispute regarding payment of duty on supplementary invoices.
3. Objection to suo moto availing of credit instead of filing a refund claim.
4. Challenge on the point of limitation for the demand raised.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant for duty availed on rejected goods returned by M/s Tata Motors. The Revenue contested the credit due to the lack of evidence of transportation from M/s Tata Motors to the appellant's premises. However, the judge noted that the receipt of rejected goods was acknowledged, supported by records and a certificate from M/s Tata Motors. The absence of transportation evidence was deemed insufficient to deny the credit under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. Consequently, the judge set aside the denial and allowed the credit to the appellant.

2. Another aspect of the case involved the appellant's payment of duty on supplementary invoices issued for goods cleared from April to May 2007, despite the price escalation clause with M/s Ashok Leyland being effective from 1.7.2007. M/s Ashok Leyland rejected the supplementary invoices, leading the appellant to take suo moto credit for the duty paid. The Revenue did not dispute the facts but objected to the method of availing credit instead of filing a refund claim. The judge considered the circumstances and upheld the appellant's right to avail credit suo moto in this scenario.

3. The judgment also tackled the challenge to the demand of Rs.1,87,174 on the grounds of limitation. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 8.3.2010, but the appellant argued that the demand was raised based on their statutory documents and was reflected in their returns for the relevant period. The judge agreed that the demand was time-barred as the re-entry was made in December 2007, predating the notice issuance. Consequently, the demand was set aside, providing relief to the appellant on the limitation issue.

4. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, resolving the issues of denial of Cenvat credit, dispute over duty payment on supplementary invoices, objection to suo moto credit availing, and the challenge on the limitation period for the demand raised. The judgment clarified the applicability of rules and timelines, ensuring a fair outcome for the appellant in the legal dispute.