2019 (6) TMI 1672 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of CENVAT credit that was erroneously - availment of CENVAT credit against documents evidencing duties paid upon procurement of base oil and other lubricating oils in bulk but not reversed to the extent of actual receipt at the premises of the appellant - HELD THAT - The issue is settled based on earlier orders of the Tribunal in their own matter. Likewise the decision of Tribunal in NEERA ENTERPRISES VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH. 1998 (5) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI , COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT VERSUS BOMBAY DYEING MFG. CO. LTD. 1997 (10) TMI 141 - CEGAT, MUMBAI and host of others on similar lines preclude the recovery of duty in consequence of difference between quantity paid for and actual ascertainment on receipt. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of CENVAT credit against duties paid on procurement of base oil and other lubricating oils.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order confirming the recovery of erroneously availed CENVAT credit amounting to ?72,98,407 between November 2004 and January 2010, along with penalties and interest. The core issue revolved around the availment of CENVAT credit against duties paid on the procurement of base oil and other lubricating oils in bulk, which were not reversed to the extent of actual receipt at the appellant's premises.

The appellant's counsel argued that a similar issue had been resolved in their favor by a previous Tribunal decision in their own case, citing order no. A/91531/17 dated 15th December 2017, which disposed of appeal no. E/85340/2017 against order-in-appeal no. PK/149/BEL/2016 dated 8th December 2016. The Tribunal examined the cited order and noted that it had settled the issue based on previous Tribunal decisions in the appellant's matter. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to precedents like Neera Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [1998 (104) ELT 382 (T)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co Ltd [1998 (97) ELT 101 (T)], which supported the appellant's position on the recovery of duty due to discrepancies in quantity paid for and actual receipt.

Considering the precedents and the settlement of the issue in the appellant's favor in previous Tribunal decisions, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The decision was pronounced in open court on 14th June 2019 by the members of the tribunal, namely HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) and HON’BLE AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).