2017 (12) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - sometimes there was shortages of supply of inputs and the appellants raised debit note to the supplier - Revenue sought to deny the Cenvat Credit in respect of value attributable to such debit note - Held that - the credit can be varied only in the circumstances where the suppliers have filed refund of the excess duty paid - In the instant case, the appellants have claimed that the supplier of goods has not claimed any refund. The Revenue has not produced any evidence that supplier has any refund - CENVAT credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of Cenvat Credit on goods short received and raised debit note to suppliers; Denial of Cenvat Credit along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules; Debit note issued inclusive of duty without supplier refund; Allegation of violation of natural justice, suppression, and wrong facts in orders; Accumulated balance challenge; Non-utilization of credit and invocability of extended limitation period.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the demand of Cenvat Credit on goods short received and debit notes raised to suppliers. The Revenue denied the Cenvat Credit along with interest and imposed penalties under relevant rules. The appellant argued that the debit notes were issued inclusive of duty without any refund claimed by the suppliers, thus the entire duty levied on the goods should be available as credit. Allegations of violation of natural justice, suppression, and incorrect facts in orders were raised. The appellant cited case laws and emphasized that no credit reversal was required in the situation. The appellant also argued against the imposition of interest and penalty under Rule 11AC, claiming non-utilization of credit and challenging the invocability of the extended limitation period.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and observed that the facts of the case were different from previous judgments cited by the appellant. The Tribunal referred to specific cases where the issue of refund claims by suppliers was crucial in determining the availability of Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of evidence regarding supplier refunds in such cases. It was noted that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence of supplier refunds, leading to the conclusion that the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied in the absence of such evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing that the credit can only be varied if suppliers have filed refunds for excess duty paid.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of evidence regarding supplier refunds to determine the availability of Cenvat Credit. The decision highlighted the legal requirement for the Revenue to verify facts at the supplier's end before denying Cenvat Credit. The judgment underscored the importance of substantiating claims with evidence and ensuring compliance with legal procedures in such cases.