2017 (11) TMI 647 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input items which were not used as accessories but were cleared separately, as such, to one of their clients - case of the appellant is that they have reversed the credit when cleared the inputs to the client - Held that - the appellant did discharge full liability on such inputs which were cleared as such by them. In fact, as claimed by the appellant, they have paid more than the amount of credit availed on the same, as there was marginal increase in the sale value. In such situation, there is no ground for further recovery of any ineligible credit from the appellant - no justification to order for further recovery of credit on these inputs which were already reversed by the appellant at the time of clearances - penalty also not imposable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of the appellant to avail credit on certain input items not used as accessories but cleared separately to a client.
- Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the clearance of inputs without the main product.
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the appellant to avail credit on certain input items that were cleared separately to a client and not used as accessories. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing RF-Feeder cable, cleared duty-paid inputs as accessories along with the final product. The Revenue contended that since the inputs were not used as accessories and were cleared separately, the credit was not available. The original authority ordered recovery of inadmissible credit and imposed a penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The appellant argued that the items for which credit was taken were essentially accessories cleared along with the main product as per client requirements. They contended that when one client requested only for these accessories, they cleared them by reversing the credit availed on such inputs, ensuring no loss to the Government. The appellant claimed that the procedure was sanctioned by Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and therefore, no demand or penal action was warranted.

The Appellate Tribunal observed that while the inputs were cleared along with the main product by the appellant, the Revenue's view was that the credit taken on inputs cleared separately was ineligible. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had paid the full liability on such inputs cleared separately, even paying more than the credit availed due to a marginal increase in the sale value. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions were in good faith, with no benefit gained, as acknowledged by the original authority. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for further recovery of credit on the inputs that were already reversed by the appellant at the time of clearance, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision revolved around the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning the clearance of inputs without the main product and the imposition of a penalty under Rule 15(1) of the same rules. The judgment emphasized the appellant's compliance with the rules, the absence of any benefit gained, and the bonafide nature of the transactions, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the setting aside of the impugned order.