2023 (7) TMI 1387 - AT - Central Excise

Seeking early hearing of appeal - Reversal of CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT - On perusal of the case records it is found that an identical matter has already been dealt with by this bench of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant in RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI 2022 (11) TMI 923 - CESTAT MUMBAI and the appeal is allowed holding that reversal of Cenvat Credit in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is not proper and justified. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass with the consent of both sides the appeal taken up today for final disposal. Cenvat Credit on the inputs used for manufacture of LPG - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra in view of decision in RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI 2022 (11) TMI 923 - CESTAT MUMBAI passed by the Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself. Since for the earlier period 2010-12 the Tribunal has held that reversal of Cenvat Credit is not proper and accordingly the benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be denied we are of the view that contrary stand cannot be taken to decide the present appeal differently. There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore by setting aside the impugned order the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the reversal of Cenvat Credit in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the disputed period 2011-12, specifically related to the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, namely Motor Spirit, High-Speed Diesel, and Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG).

Summary:

Issue 1: Reversal of Cenvat Credit
The appellant inadvertently reversed Cenvat Credit taken on inputs used for manufacturing LPG in 2011-12, which was later realized to be a mistake. The appellant filed a refund application, which was rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, referring to a previous decision in a similar case, held that reversal of Cenvat Credit in this scenario is not justified. The Tribunal also cited a case where the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming that taking Cenvat Credit on inputs used for manufacturing LPG as a by-product is permissible, and reversal of such credit cannot be insisted upon by the department. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, based on established legal principles and precedents, found no merit in the impugned order by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.