2016 (12) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - procurement of input from 100% EOU - The EOU cleared inputs to the appellant by paying duty under Serial No. 3 of the Notification No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 - whether the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit? - Held that - In this case the payment of duty under serial no. 3 of notification 23/2003 is not disputed by the parties. The duty cost on the appellant is to verify that the 100% EOU has paid duty under sr. No. 3 of the said notification when the duty has been paid under sr. No. 3 of under notification 23/2003-CE, the same is sufficient to entitlement to the credit to the appellant. In that circumstance, I hold that the appellant has correctly availed the cenvat credit. Therefore, the impugned order deserves no merits, hence set aside - CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's entitlement to cenvat credit for duty paid by the supplier.
2. Interpretation of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding verification of supplier by the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appellant's entitlement to cenvat credit for duty paid by the supplier
The appellant procured inputs from a 100% EOU during a specific period and availed cenvat credit of duty paid by the supplier under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. A show cause notice was issued alleging that the supplier did not establish the procurement of indigenously manufactured inputs, questioning the appellant's entitlement to the credit. The matter was adjudicated, resulting in a demand confirmation with interest and penalty. The appellant contended that since the supplier paid duty as per the relevant notification, the appellant is entitled to the cenvat credit. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, held that the duty payment by the supplier under the specified notification sufficed for the appellant's entitlement to the credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
The respondent argued that Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 required the appellant to verify that the 100% EOU had used indigenously manufactured inputs for the goods supplied. The failure to verify this aspect, according to the respondent, rendered the appellant ineligible for 100% EOU credit. However, the Tribunal found that the duty payment by the supplier under the specific notification was crucial, and as long as this condition was met, the appellant was entitled to the cenvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant correctly availed the credit and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, affirming their entitlement to cenvat credit based on the duty payment by the supplier as per the relevant notification. The decision highlighted the importance of compliance with specific provisions and notifications in determining cenvat credit eligibility, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the demand and penalties imposed on the appellant.