2017 (2) TMI 831 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - consumption variation - demand on the basis of debit notes raised by Britannia Industries Ltd. to the appellant on account of variation in the consumption - Held that - No verification was carried out by the department - Either the input must be lying in the factory or same has been used in the production but only as per input output ratio the principal has assumed that there is a consumption variation and accordingly the debit notes were raised - in the absence of evidence that the input was not received in the factory or the same after receipt cleared from the factory the cenvat credit cannot be denied - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of cenvat credit based on consumption variation and debit notes issued by principal, absence of physical verification, contention of short receipt/diversion of inputs, dispute over consumption variation reasons.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in biscuit manufacturing on job work basis with raw materials supplied by M/s. Britannia Industries Ltd., faced a demand for cenvat credit due to consumption variation noted in debit notes issued by the principal. The department's stance was that this variation implied a shortage of input, justifying the credit denial.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that denial was unwarranted as per the job work agreement terms, emphasizing the absence of physical verification to support the claim of non-receipt or diversion of inputs. It was clarified that all supplied quantities were received and utilized, attributing consumption variation to various factors beyond input handling discrepancies.

3. The Assistant Commissioner reiterated the department's position, upholding the initial order denying cenvat credit based solely on debit notes without concrete evidence of input mismanagement.

4. Upon review, the tribunal found the department's reliance on debit notes insufficient to establish non-receipt or diversion of inputs by the appellant. The appellant had received all inputs from the principal, and the consumption variation, as indicated by debit notes, did not conclusively prove any malpractice.

5. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The decision highlighted the lack of evidence supporting credit denial, emphasizing the appellant's rightful entitlement to cenvat credit given the absence of proof indicating input mishandling or diversion.

6. The judgment, delivered on 27/01/2017, concluded the matter, disposing of the appeal and associated procedural applications in light of the favorable decision for the appellant.