2017 (1) TMI 297 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - reversal on the ground that the appellant in respect of certain inputs shown the input as waste and value of the input was shown reduced - Held that - though input was shown in the books of the appellant as scrap and lesser value was shown, but it is not the case where the value of the input was written off. Therefore in my view Rule 3(5B) has no application - So long the input is lying in the factory credit cannot be asked to be reversed. Needless to say that as and when the input is cleared from the factory it will be liable for duty in terms of Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Reversal of credit not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Disputed Cenvat Credit; Interpretation of Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Applicability of Precedents

In this case, the appellant's Cenvat Credit was disputed due to the treatment of certain inputs as waste in their records, resulting in a reduced value. The credit denial by the adjudicating authority was upheld by the Commissioner, leading to the appeal. The Ld. Superintendent for the Revenue argued that as per Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, if an assessee writes off the value of an input or makes a provision for writing off, the Cenvat Credit on such input must be reversed. The Ld. A.R. referred to specific judgments to support this argument. The Member (Judicial) carefully analyzed the submissions and records. It was noted that although the inputs were shown as scrap with a lesser value in the appellant's books, they remained in the factory and were not cleared. It was emphasized that the value of the input was not written off, hence Rule 3(5B) was deemed inapplicable. The Member distinguished the cited judgments, highlighting that the situation in those cases differed from the present case. Notably, the Tribunal's decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. case was referenced, clarifying that credit denial is warranted only under specific circumstances, none of which applied in this instance. It was concluded that as long as the input remained in the factory, the credit reversal was not justified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, indicating that the appellant was not obligated to reverse the credit in the given scenario.