2017 (1) TMI 414 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit of Additional Duties of Customs paid on imported goods - subject goods were imported under SFIS and Basic Customs Duty Additional Duty of Customs and cess were paid through debit in Duty Credit Scrip/Certificate issued by DGFT and not in cash. - Held that - the fact of payment of Customs Duty Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) and the cess etc. in respect of the subject goods is not in dispute and there is no dispute that the said import goods have been received by the respondent in their manufacturing unit. Once the subject goods have been received as inputs for manufacturing in the factory premises of the respondent they would be entitled to the Cenvat credit of the relevant duties paid in case of imported goods as per the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - credit allowed - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing Cenvat credit on imported goods under Customs Notification No. 92/2004-CUS.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the availment of Cenvat credit on imported goods under Customs Notification No. 92/2004-CUS, with the Revenue arguing that the duty and cess paid on the imported goods are not eligible for credit, leading to a revenue loss. However, the respondent asserts that they imported goods under the SFIS scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, supported by a DGFT license, and paid duties through Duty Credit Scrip issued by DGFT. The Tribunal notes that the respondent received the imported goods in their manufacturing unit, making them eligible for Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The Tribunal examines the facts, submissions, and the show cause notice, finding that the payment of Customs Duty, Additional Duty of Customs, and cess on the imported goods is undisputed. Once the goods are received as manufacturing inputs, the respondent is entitled to Cenvat credit as per Rules 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal upholds the impugned order, emphasizing that the respondent availed the duties' credit as a manufacturer, not as an output service provider, and did not contravene any provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal rejects the Revenue's appeal, finding no substantial arguments to counter the impugned order's findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal supports the impugned order's findings, stating that the Revenue's appeal lacks merit. The Tribunal affirms that the respondent was entitled to avail the credit of the duties paid on imported inputs for manufacturing without contravening any Cenvat Credit Rules. The appeal is dismissed, and the impugned order is upheld, with no substantial arguments from the Revenue to challenge the findings.