2019 (7) TMI 1700 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - whether the discrepancy being in the nature of short availment of Cenvat credit due to accounting error and subsequent taking of such short credit is hit by the third proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? HELD THAT - The appellant have taken Cenvat credit within time permissible on the invoices, in question, however due to clerical error the credit was short availed. This fact is apparent on the face of record as demonstrated before this Tribunal - in case of such short credits subsequently taken, the third proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules shall not be applicable. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to verify the fact and if the credits, in question, have been taken by way of rectification of short paid credit, the same shall be allowed - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Whether discrepancy in availing Cenvat credit due to accounting error is hit by the third proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Discrepancy in Availing Cenvat Credit
The appellant, a manufacturer of engine parts, availed Cenvat credit for 35 invoices but later found discrepancies due to accounting errors. The appellant admitted to short availing credit on 34 invoices, rectifying the error by taking the differential amount as credit later. The Revenue issued a show cause notice claiming the rectified credit was ineligible under the third proviso to Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 4(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules
Rule 4(1) allows immediate availing of Cenvat credit upon receipt of inputs, with a proviso that credit cannot be taken after one year from the date of issue of specified documents. The appellant argued that rectification entries do not constitute the first-time availing of credit under Rule 4(1), seeking allowance of the appeal based on previous rulings supporting their position.

Issue 3: Adjudication and Decision
The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the appellant had initially availed the credit within the permissible time but later rectified the short availed credits due to clerical errors. The Tribunal held that the third proviso to Rule 4(1) would not apply in cases of rectification entries for short availed credits. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for verification. The appellant was directed to provide supporting evidence within 60 days for the Adjudicating Authority's review.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, allowing the rectification of short availed Cenvat credit due to accounting errors and directing further verification by the Adjudicating Authority.