2016 (2) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit - assessee has suffered duty against the purchases made from the dealer who dealt with the excisable goods came from M/s. CPCL - Held that - In absence of any contrary finding as to non-payment of duty by the respondent or for no deposit of such duty realized from respondent, into the treasury by M/s. IOCL, it would be impracticable to deny Cenvat credit to the respondent in respect of the duty paid by it on good faith to M/s. IOCL following the ratio laid down in the case of CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. 2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over admissibility of Cenvat credit on excise duty paid by the respondent to M/s. IOCL.
2. Whether the respondent is entitled to claim credit for excess duty paid to M/s. IOCL.
3. Application of law regarding Cenvat credit in cases of excess duty paid by the respondent.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The Revenue contended that the duty levied on products sold by M/s. CPCL to M/s. IOCL and subsequently by M/s. IOCL to the respondent is only admissible as Cenvat credit subject to fulfillment of legal conditions. The respondent argued that the duty paid by them should have been deposited into the treasury and unless proven otherwise, their claim for credit is valid.

Issue 2: The respondent maintained that even if M/s. IOCL collected excess duty, the respondent should not be penalized for it. They relied on the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs MDS Switchgear Ltd. to support their argument that the excess payment should not affect their right to claim Cenvat credit.

Issue 3: After hearing both sides and examining the records, the tribunal found that there was no evidence of non-payment of duty by the respondent or failure by M/s. IOCL to deposit the collected duty into the treasury. Following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd., the tribunal concluded that denying Cenvat credit to the respondent based on the excess duty paid would be unjustifiable.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that in the absence of evidence showing non-payment of duty by the respondent or failure to deposit the duty collected by M/s. IOCL, the respondent's right to claim Cenvat credit on duty paid in good faith should be upheld, aligning with the legal principles established in the referenced case law.