2017 (5) TMI 141 - AT - Central Excise

Re-credit of CENVAT account - the appellant availed and utilized Cenvat Credit for payment of duty for clearance of machineries / capital goods and purchased raw-materials / inputs from their units from August, 2008 onwards. Subsequently, the appellant debited the amount alongwith interest from their PLA account as the amount was utilized irregularly. Thereafter, the appellant reaccredited the amount paid earlier in their Cenvat account - Held that - the Tribunal in the case of sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-I 2013 (5) TMI 430 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , on an identical issue allowed the appeal by following the decision of Motorola India Pvt. 2006 (7) TMI 223 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Availing and utilization of Cenvat Credit for payment of duty
- Debiting and reaccrediting the amount irregularly
- Adjudication confirming demand, interest, and penalty
- Appeal dismissal by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Contesting demand on merits and limitation
- Reference to legal decisions
- Applicability of Larger Bench decision
- Tribunal's consideration and allowance of appeal

Analysis:

The case involves the appellant availing and utilizing Cenvat Credit for duty payment and purchasing raw materials from their units. Subsequently, irregular utilization led to debiting and reaccrediting the amount from their PLA account. The Revenue deemed the re-credit irregular and inadmissible, resulting in a demand of &8377; 227,165, interest, and penalty, confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the dismissal of the appeal.

The appellant contested the demand on merits and limitation, citing legal decisions like Neptune Industries, Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd., Ballarpur Industries Ltd., and Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd. The appellant argued against the demand, while the Revenue relied on the BDH Industries Ltd. case, emphasizing the Larger Bench decision.

The Tribunal analyzed the issue, noting the lack of recurring effect and the decision in Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd., where the appeal was allowed based on the Larger Bench's consideration. The Tribunal discussed the Motorola India Pvt. Limited case, highlighting the discrepancy in the Larger Bench's decision and the High Court's ruling. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appellant's appeal.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of legal precedents, the interpretation of relevant case laws, and the application of legal principles in resolving disputes related to Cenvat Credit utilization and reaccreditation. The detailed analysis showcases the Tribunal's thorough consideration of legal arguments and precedents to reach a just decision in favor of the appellant.