9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 408 - AT - Central ExciseSuo moto credit of excess credit reversed - section 11B of CEA - Held that - The fact is not under dispute that the appellant had inadvertently reversed the amount of 7% in the Cenvat account, instead of the prescribed amount of 6% of the value of exempted goods. The process of reversal of excess Cenvat credit and taking of re-credit of the said excess amount involve only accounting/book adjustment. There was practically no outflow of fund towards this accounting adjustment. Thus, the provisions of Section 11B of the Act for refund claim will not be applicable to the case in hand. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of ICMC Corporation Ltd 2014 (1) TMI 1473 - MADRAS HIGH COURT have held that process involving availment of suo motu Cenvat credit of the amount reversed earlier is a technical book adjustment and in absence of outflow of funds from assessee, filing of refund claim under Section 11B of the Act does not arise. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether re-credit taken by the appellant is a technical correction or fresh availment of credit? 2. Applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to the case. 3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding taking re-credit of excess amount in Cenvat account. 4. Analysis of relevant case laws supporting the appellant's position. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant inadvertently reversed 7% instead of the prescribed 6% in the Cenvat account. The appellant argued that re-credit was a technical correction, not fresh credit. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in ICMC Corporation Ltd. case held that such process is a book adjustment, not requiring a refund claim under Section 11B of the Act. The appellant's action did not involve an outflow of funds, supporting the technical adjustment argument. Issue 2: The department disputed the appellant's re-credit action, insisting on a refund application under Section 11B. However, the Hon'ble Madras High Court's judgment clarified that no refund claim was necessary for such technical adjustments, as in the present case. The appellant's case aligns with the legal interpretation that no outflow of funds occurred, removing the need for a refund claim under Section 11B. Issue 3: The appellant's re-credit process involved only accounting adjustments without any actual fund outflow. The Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision emphasized that in cases like this, no refund claim under Section 11B was required. The judgment highlighted that the appellant's action was in line with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and did not lead to unjust enrichment, as it was a technical adjustment. Issue 4: The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support their argument, including judgments from different High Courts and the Tribunal. The judgments cited by the appellant reinforced the position that the re-credit taken was a technical adjustment and did not necessitate a refund claim under Section 11B. The legal authorities cited by the appellant provided a strong basis for the Tribunal to allow the appeal in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal, led by Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial), analyzed the case in light of the legal principles and precedents cited by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant's re-credit action was a technical correction, not requiring a refund claim under Section 11B. The judgment highlighted that no actual fund outflow occurred, aligning with the legal interpretation provided by the cited case laws. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
