2016 (8) TMI 122 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - eligible inputs - defective duty paying documents - credit taken on assembly Canvass Canopy, Castable Refractory, Doors, Windows and Frames of the vehicles. - Held that - So far as Cenvat Credit with respect to CS Spoon, Assembly, Canvass Canopy, it is observed that this Bench in appellant s own case of Tata Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, JSR (2010 (10) TMI 458 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) held that credit on these items along with refractories used for lining of furnace is admissible. Similarly in para 16 of these case laws, it is held that when goods under job-work are received after 180(one hundred and eighty) days then credit can be taken again as per the provisions of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. - further on technical lapses Cenvat credit cannot be disallowed - credit allowed. - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Denial of credit due to defective duty paying documents.
3. Denial of credit for inputs cleared to job-worker under Rule 57F(4) and 57F(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original disallowing Cenvat Credit. The advocate argued for the appellant, stating that credit was denied for various items such as assembly Canvass Canopy, Castable Refractory, Doors, Windows, and Frames of vehicles. The advocate contended that these items were essential inputs in the manufacturing process. The advocate relied on specific case laws to support their arguments. The tribunal observed that credit on these items was admissible based on previous judgments in similar cases. The tribunal also noted that technical lapses should not lead to the disallowance of Cenvat credit, as established in previous cases.

2. Regarding the denial of credit due to defective duty paying documents, the advocate argued that the correct classification and description of inputs were provided through codes, as the inputs were known in the market by different names/brands. The advocate cited several case laws to support the appellant's case. The tribunal found that the issues were settled in favor of the appellant based on the case laws presented, and thus allowed the appeal.

3. The denial of credit for inputs cleared to a job-worker under specific rules of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was also contested. The advocate argued that the denial was covered by the prescribed procedures under the rules and had been correctly availed. The revenue representative defended the original order, stating that the correct description was not provided in the duty paying documents and that the inputs were not directly used in the manufacture of finished goods. However, the tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the case records, found in favor of the appellant, citing previous judgments that supported the admissibility of credit in similar situations. The appeal was allowed based on the settled issues in favor of the appellant.