9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 625 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit of CVD paid on capital goods - case of Revenue is that as per Rule 4 (2) (a) and (b) the assessee can avail only 50% of duty paid on capital goods as credit in any financial year - Held that - due to certain administrative reasons and non-receipt of original documents, the appellant could not avail the credit of 50% in the same financial year when the capital goods were received by them. Accordingly, they availed the credit to the full extent in the next financial year 2012-2013 - The appellants are apparently eligible for 50% credit in 2011-2012 itself, as they had capital goods and did pay duty on such capital goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Availment of Central Excise duty credit on imported capital goods in multiple installments. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against an order by the Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, New Delhi, where the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of noodles and wafers, imported capital goods and availed credit of Central Excise duty on them. The Revenue objected, citing Rule 4 (2) (a) and (b) which allowed only 50% credit in a financial year. The appellant received the goods in 2011 but availed full credit in 2012-2013. The Original Authority denied credit and imposed a penalty. The appellant argued that they refrained from availing credit in 2011-2012 due to missing documents and later availed full credit in 2012-2013. They contended that the eligibility for credit was not in dispute, only the timing of availing it in two installments. They relied on a Tribunal decision to support their case. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appellant was entitled to 50% credit when goods were received, and the duty paid nature of goods was not disputed. Due to administrative reasons and missing documents, the appellant could not avail credit in the same year but did so in the next financial year. The Tribunal interpreted Rule 4 (2) (a) and (b) and found that denial of credit was unwarranted in such circumstances. They held that the denial was not supported by law as the appellant was eligible for credit in 2011-2012 itself. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.
|
