2018 (3) TMI 266 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Department was of the view that since no Excise Duty was required to be paid on such dies on transfer to Unit-II, the Cenvat Credit availed was irregular - Held that - there is no dispute about the payment of duty by M/s Tata Motors Ltd., which has been availed as Cenvat Credit as by Unit-II. There was no legal requirement on the part of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. to pay the CVD but the same has been paid. It is a settled law that receiver of the goods is eligible to take credit of duty paid and the correctness of the assessment and payability of the duty by the supplier of the goods cannot be opened by the Central Excise Authorities at the end of the recipient of the goods. Similar issue came up before Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE V/s MDS Switchgear Ltd. 2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that CER entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail credit of the duty paid by the supplier, so quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be challenged by revenue in charge of recipient unit. Transfer of dies from Unit-II to Unit-I on payment of duty - Held that - there is no dispute that Unit-II has paid duty while transferring the dies to Unit-I. Admittedly, these dies have been sent for repairs and are not in the nature of capital goods for Unit-I. But Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides for return of goods to the factory for repair, remaking etc. Hence the credit cannot be disallowed only for the reason that the dies are not the capital goods for Unit-I. The appellant has submitted various documents such as material receipt notes on the part of Unit-I, purchase order details of proportion including evidence for payment of Service Tax on the transportation etc. These evidences have been ignored by the adjudicating authority. In any case the credit availed by Unit-II stands reversed when the dies were returned to Unit-II after carrying out repairs by reversal of the Cenvat Credit. Since the credit availed already stood reversed no demand can be raised against the Unit-I for repayment of the credit availed all over again. There is no justification for demanding repayment of Cenvat Credit all over again by taking the view that the credit availed was irregular - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Dispute regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit by Unit-II.
2. Dispute regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit of Unit-I.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Dispute regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit by Unit-II:
The dispute involved the receipt of dies by Unit-II from M/s Tata Motors, where M/s Tata Motors imported the dies duty-free under the EPCG Scheme but paid duty at the time of transfer to Unit-II. The Revenue contended that since there was no requirement for M/s Tata Motors to pay duty, the Cenvat Credit availed by Unit-II was irregular. However, the Tribunal found that the duty was duly paid by M/s Tata Motors and upheld the eligibility of Unit-II to avail the Cenvat Credit. Citing the case of CCE v/s MDS Switchgear Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that the recipient of goods is entitled to take credit of duty paid, and the payability of duty by the supplier cannot be questioned later. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of Unit-II.

2. Dispute regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit of Unit-I:
The second dispute involved the transfer of dies from Unit-II to Unit-I, where Unit-II paid duty, and Unit-I availed Cenvat Credit for the duty paid. The Revenue argued that the dies were not capital goods for Unit-I, and the transactions were a sham to benefit Unit-I. However, the Tribunal noted that Unit-II had paid duty for the transfer, and although the dies were not capital goods for Unit-I, Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules allowed for the return of goods for repair. The Tribunal also highlighted that the credit availed by Unit-II had already been reversed when the dies were returned after repair, and therefore, no further demand could be made on Unit-I for repayment of the credit. By referencing a similar case involving M/s Amul Auto Components Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for demanding repayment of Cenvat Credit from Unit-I. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all the appeals in favor of the appellants.