2018 (5) TMI 12 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - CVD amount paid against Bill of Entry addressed to Vapi unit - Held that - non-filing of intimation to the Range Superintendent, on the movement of said goods, would not disentitled them in availing credit on the Bill of Entry, when the entire consignment after processing at their Vapi unit has been sent to the Padra unit for further use - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit against irregularly addressed Bill of Entry.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax (Appeals) regarding the irregular availment of Cenvat credit. The appellant had availed credit of CVD amount paid against a Bill of Entry addressed to their Vapi unit, which led to the issuance of a show cause notice for recovery of the credit with interest and penalty. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty after adjudication, and the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal, leading to the present appeal before the tribunal.

The appellant contended that the imported chemicals were meant to be processed on a job work basis at their Vapi unit and then returned to their Padra unit for use in the manufacture of finished excisable goods. Despite the Bill of Entry being addressed to the Vapi unit instead of the Padra unit, the entire consignment was endorsed in favor of the Padra unit, and proper delivery challans were prepared for sending the goods on a job work basis to the Vapi unit. The processed goods were then returned to the Padra unit for further use in the manufacture of finished goods, which were cleared on payment of duty.

The tribunal noted that the imported goods were received at the Vapi unit, processed into an intermediate product, and then cleared to the Padra unit where the CVD credit was availed. It was established that the entire consignment was processed at the Vapi unit and cleared to the Padra unit for further use in the manufacture of finished goods. The tribunal held that the non-filing of intimation to the Range Superintendent regarding the movement of goods did not disentitle the appellant from availing credit on the Bill of Entry, especially when the processed goods were sent to the Padra unit for further use. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequent relief as per law. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant in this matter.