2015 (7) TMI 382 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - assessee had wrongfully availed of credit on inputs in the final products under Chapters 9306 and 3506 - Held that - There was no reference therein to the declaration under Rule 57G or the deletion of the final product from the purview of the same. In such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly interfered with the concurrent orders and allowed the assessee s appeal. In any event, a declaration requiring the assessee to mention the final product and which declaration is to be filled in, in compliance with the procedural provision, would not govern the issue of admissibility of the credit. That is how the Tribunal proceeds as well. On both counts, we do not find that its order is perverse or vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record. The substantial question of law would therefore, have to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding denial of credit to the respondent-assessee.
2. Allegation of wrongful availment of credit on inputs in final products under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
3. Confirmation of demand for reversal of credit by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise and subsequent dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Tribunal's finding on the grievance projected by the show cause notice and the discrepancy in the declaration under Rule 57G leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay dealt with an appeal challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which denied credit to the respondent-assessee. The show cause notice accused the assessee of wrongfully availing credit on inputs in final products falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The notice directed the reversal of the credit amounting to Rs. 3,83,789. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed this demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, prompting the assessee to approach the Tribunal for relief.

Upon examination, the Tribunal observed that the show cause notice primarily focused on the wrongful availment of credit or the inadmissibility of credit due to a discrepancy in the declaration filled by the assessee under Rule 57G. The notice did not explicitly mention the withdrawal of products from the list of final products, which was the basis for the demand. The Tribunal concluded that the orders by the Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) deviated from the allegations in the show cause notice by considering the declaration under Rule 57G. The Tribunal emphasized that the procedural requirement of declaring final products does not dictate the admissibility of credit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding no perversity or legal error in its decision.

In light of the above analysis, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court determined that the principal allegation in the show cause notice pertained to the wrongful availment of credit, not the declaration under Rule 57G. Therefore, the appeal challenging the Tribunal's order was dismissed, affirming the correctness of the Tribunal's intervention and the assessee's entitlement to credit under the Modvat Rules.