2016 (7) TMI 1612 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act - N/N. 89/2005-Cus. dated 04.10.2005 - HELD THAT - The fact is not under dispute that while assessing the Bills of Entry, the amount towards CVD and Cess have not been bifurcated by the Customs Authorities. Since, the entire disputed amount was reflected under the CVD head in the Bills of Entry, taking of Cenvat Credit of such amount is in conformity with Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - the Notification No. 89/2005-Cus. dated 04.10.2005 has specifically permitted an importer to avail Cenvat Credit of additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act against the amount debited in the Duty Entitlement Passbook Script. Since, no provisions of the Cenvat Statute have been contravened in this case, taking of disputed Cenvat Credit by the appellant is proper and justified - appeal Allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Disputed Cenvat Credit on imported inputs and capital goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur, regarding the disputed Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant on imported inputs and capital goods for manufacturing Zinc and Lead ingots. The Department contended that the appellant had availed excess Cenvat credit under the head CVD Account and should have bifurcated the credit in respect of the actual CVD amount only. The show cause notice resulted in disallowance of Cenvat Credit, imposition of penalty, and disallowance of interest, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant argued that the Bills of Entry did not bifurcate the Cess and duty amounts, justifying the total CVD amount availed as Cenvat Credit. The appellant relied on Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that the Bill of Entry is a prescribed document for credit availment. Additionally, the appellant contended that the credit taken was in compliance with Rule 3 of the rules. The appellant also defended the applicability of Rule 3 (7) (b) by asserting that the amount paid under 'CVD' aligns with statutory provisions based on the Bills of Entry.

The respondent, represented by the ld. D.R., reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the proceedings. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Member (Judicial) found that the Customs Authorities had not bifurcated the CVD and Cess amounts in the Bills of Entry. As the entire disputed amount was categorized under the 'CVD' head in the Bills of Entry, the Member concluded that the Cenvat Credit availed was in accordance with Rule 3 and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Moreover, the Member highlighted that Notification No. 89/2005-Cus. permitted importers to claim Cenvat Credit against the amount debited in the Duty Entitlement Passbook Script, without contravening any provisions of the Cenvat Statute. Consequently, the Member set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Member (Judicial) did not find merit in the impugned order and ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the compliance with relevant statutory provisions and the absence of contraventions in claiming the disputed Cenvat Credit on imported inputs and capital goods.