2008 (7) TMI 167 - AT - Central Excise

Suo motu re-credit of reversed credit earlier credit was reversed without any verification on basis of direction of audit officers recredit amounts to merely adjustment of credit transaction not amounts to payment of duty hence recredit was justified in respect of returned goods, Commissioner has given the categorical finding that it was not manufacturing hence credit taken is required to be revered at clearance since credit was utilized incorrectly, penalty is imposable

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding re-credit of cenvat credit in RG23A Part-II account, eligibility of credit reversal, necessity of refund claim, applicability of legal principles on debit reversal, determination of manufacturing process for credit reversal, confirmation of penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the Commissioner (Appeals) order, challenging the disallowance of suo motu re-credit of cenvat credit in the RG23A Part-II account. The dispute arose when the appellants availed credit on invoices but later reversed certain amounts, admitting ineligibility. The Department argued that re-crediting was improper, advocating for refund claims instead. The key issue was whether an assessee can make a credit entry without notifying the Department after wrongly debiting in the RG23A register.

The Advocate relied on Tribunal decisions supporting credit reversal, while the Jt. CDR argued that the reversal essentially constituted a refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited the Jai Bhawani Concast Pvt. Ltd. case, emphasizing the need for refund claims over suo motu debit reversals. The Advocate referenced various judgments, asserting that credit reversal was a mere adjustment, not requiring a refund claim.

The Tribunal found the Advocate's judgments relevant and applicable, supporting the permissibility of debit reversal. Contrary to the Jt. CDR's argument, the Tribunal held that the cited judgment was not relevant to the case at hand. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants' actions constituted a mere adjustment of credit, aligning with the Advocate's position.

Regarding a specific credit of Rs. 23,916/-, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' observations, noting the lack of explanation on the manufacturing process for rejected/returned goods. As the goods did not undergo processes amounting to manufacture, the credit reversal was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal confirmed the demand for Rs. 23,916/- with interest but set aside other demands related to debit reversal. The penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules was upheld due to the appellants' actions, including improper credit and debit reversals. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the legality of credit reversal, emphasized the need for proper manufacturing process for credit eligibility, and upheld the penalty for non-compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules.