2017 (8) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Department was of the view that such credit availed was improper inasmuch as GAR-7 was not a prescribed document for availing the CENVAT credit - Held that - reliance placed in the case of CORDS CABLE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR-I 2015 (10) TMI 1317 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat credit of inputs attributed to export goods cleared in domestic market by way of debit entry in RG 23A Part II register - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance of pre-deposit under section 35F for appeal dismissal.
2. Availment of cenvat credit based on non-prescribed document.
3. Appropriation of duty demand from refund for compliance under section 35F.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order dated 13.2.2017 regarding the procurement of raw materials at a concessional rate for export, but the export order was canceled. The appellant paid the central excise duty on the raw material and availed cenvat credit. The dispute arose when the department contended that the credit was improper as GAR-7 was not a prescribed document for availing cenvat credit. The original adjudicating authority upheld this view, which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the dismissal of their appeal was based on non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F, despite the duty being paid through appropriation from a refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found the cenvat credit inadmissible due to the use of non-specified documents. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order on these grounds.

3. The Department maintained that the pre-deposit condition under section 35F was not substantially fulfilled by the appellant, as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appellant had intimated the appropriation of the duty demand from the refund towards the payment. The Tribunal noted a similar case precedent where cenvat credit was allowed for duty-free procured inputs used in manufacturing goods cleared after duty payment. Following this precedent, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order based on the compliance with the pre-deposit condition under section 35F and the precedent allowing cenvat credit for duty-free procured inputs used in manufacturing goods.