2015 (10) TMI 1943 - AT - Central Excise

Disallowance of cenvat credit - applicability of Rule 9A(1) - Held that - As per Rule 9A(1) of the Rules, an assessee can take Cenvat credit on the basis of documentary evidence to ascertain how much credit is available. It is not in dispute that respondent has produced documentary evidence to avail Cenvat credit. Therefore, Notification 35/2003 is not applicable to the facts of this case as same is applicable where the assessee is taking credit without any documents. Therefore, the said Notification suggests the formula how the amount of Cenvat credit is to be calculated. As in this case, the respondent has taken the Cenvat credit on the basis of documentary evidences as per Rule 9A(1) of the Rules. The provisions of Notification No. 30/2003 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the impugned order allowing Cenvat credit
- Interpretation of Rule 9A of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002
- Applicability of Notification 35/2003 dated 10-4-2003
- Excess credit taken by the respondent
- Entitlement to Cenvat credit for goods with job worker

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI revolved around the dispute regarding the Cenvat credit taken by the respondent on 1-4-2003. The main contention was whether the respondent was entitled to take the credit as per Rule 9A(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 or as per Notification 35/2003 dated 10-4-2003. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the Cenvat credit based on Rule 9A(1), leading to the appeal by the Revenue.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed Rule 9A(1) of the Rules, which allows an assessee to take Cenvat credit based on documentary evidence to determine the available credit. It was noted that the respondent had indeed provided documentary evidence to support their Cenvat credit claim. The Tribunal emphasized that Notification 35/2003 was not applicable in this case, as it pertains to situations where credit is taken without any documents. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow the Cenvat credit based on Rule 9A(1) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the issue of excess credit taken by the respondent beyond the physical verification stock. The respondent explained that the additional stock was with a job worker, asserting that goods with the job worker are also eligible for Cenvat credit as per Rule 9A. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the respondent was entitled to avail Cenvat credit based on documentary evidence, including goods with the job worker.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the applicability of Rule 9A of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 in determining Cenvat credit entitlement based on documentary evidence. The decision highlighted the importance of proper documentation and upheld the respondent's right to claim Cenvat credit in accordance with the relevant rules, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.