2015 (10) TMI 1205 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Credit taken on invalid documents - Held that - On perusal of the adjudication order, I am unable to accept the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen from the challan dated 11.11.2008 that the merchant exporter M/s Ram Ratna international paid the duty for non- fulfillment of the export obligation of 6108.48 kgs of import material. The appellant availed the credit of ₹ 3,25,540.00 on additional payment of duty by the merchant exporter for non-fulfillment of the export obligation on the inputs received by them. Thus, it does not amount to availment of the Cenvat Credit twice. The appellant is eligible to avail the credit on the basis of the challans authorized by the customs, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II vs Hindustan Composites Ltd. 2004 (3) TMI 637 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set-aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit based on alleged invalid documents.
2. Availment of Cenvat Credit twice on the same quantity of inputs.
3. Interpretation of challans as valid documents for availing Cenvat Credit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Cenvat Credit based on alleged invalid documents
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing Enamelled Copper Wire/Copper Scrap, who received inputs from M/s Sterlite Industries under an advance license scheme for export purposes. The dispute arose when a Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to disallow Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,25,540.00, alleging that the credit was taken based on invalid documents, particularly the payment through challans. The Adjudicating Authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the order and ruled in favor of the Revenue. The appellant then filed an appeal challenging this decision.

Issue 2: Availment of Cenvat Credit twice on the same quantity of inputs
The Commissioner (Appeals) contended that availing Cenvat Credit twice on the same quantity of inputs was legally incorrect. The appellant had availed credit on the total quantity of 83035 kgs, which included the shortfall quantity of 6108.48 kgs. Therefore, subsequent availing of credit on the shortfall quantity would amount to double availing of Cenvat Credit.

Issue 3: Interpretation of challans as valid documents for availing Cenvat Credit
Upon review, the Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and found that the appellant was eligible to avail the credit based on the challans authorized by customs. The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the payment made by the merchant exporter for the shortfall in export obligation did not constitute double availing of Cenvat Credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reinstated the order of the Adjudicating Authority, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant.