2015 (11) TMI 1783 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input - Liquid Absorbent Polymers (CABLOC) through imported sources - it was observed that the said input is of substandard quality - HELD THAT - On plane reading of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it reveals that in the eventuality, when the credit has been taken or utilized wrongly, the said statutory provision can be invoked for recovery of the Cenvat amount - In the present case, the issue is not in dispute that input goods covered under the Bill of Entry have not been received in the factory of the appellant. It is also not in dispute and there is no specific allegation by the Department that the goods have not been utilized for the manufacture of the final product. Since as a commercial practice and as per the terms of agreement entered into between the appellant and its supplier, the debit note was issued for compensating the appellant towards supply of sub-standard goods, Cenvat benefit cannot be denied to the appellant, in view of the fact no such provisions exist in the Cenvat statute for doing so. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cenvat credit denial for substandard goods.
2. Interpretation of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The case involved the denial of Cenvat credit by the Central Excise Department due to the receipt of substandard goods. The appellant issued a debit note to the overseas supplier for the substandard goods received, leading to a dispute with the Department. The Department argued that since the goods were rejected, they were not capable of being used for the intended purpose, justifying the denial of Cenvat credit. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Cenvat demand and penalty imposition. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no specific allegation that the goods were not utilized for manufacturing the final product. The Tribunal highlighted that the debit note was issued as per commercial practice and the terms of the agreement to compensate for the substandard goods. The Tribunal concluded that since there were no provisions in the Cenvat statute to deny the benefit under such circumstances, the appellant should not be denied the Cenvat credit.

Issue 2: The Tribunal analyzed Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows for recovery of Cenvat amount in case of wrong utilization of credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the rule applies when credit has been taken or utilized wrongly. In this case, the Tribunal found that the goods covered under the Bill of Entry were not received in the factory, but there was no dispute regarding their utilization for manufacturing the final product. As the debit note was issued to compensate for the substandard goods as per the commercial agreement, the Tribunal concluded that the Cenvat benefit cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

Overall, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the denial of Cenvat credit for substandard goods was not justified under the existing provisions of the Cenvat statute. The judgment highlighted the importance of commercial practices and agreements in such cases and interpreted Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules to support the appellant's position.