9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 939 - AT - Central ExciseTransfer of goods by from Jamshedpur unit to Bhiwadi unit - case of Revenue is that the excess duty paid by the supplier unit was with a view to transferring excess Cenvat credit in the hands of the supplier unit - Held that - Similar issue was decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of, MDS Switchgear Ltd 2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Apex Court has held that the credit cannot be varied at recipient s end on the ground that the supplier should have paid lesser duty. There is no justification for denial of CENVAT credit in the hands of the appellants - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Dispute over denial of Cenvat credit due to excess excise duty paid by supplier unit. - Interpretation of Circular No. 940/1/2011-CX regarding Cenvat credit for excess duty on exempted goods. - Application of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 in the context of duty payment by supplier unit. - Justification for reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the order-in-Original No. 29/17-18 dated 22.12.2017, focusing on the denial of Cenvat credit due to the excess excise duty paid by the supplier unit located in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. The dispute revolved around the allegation that the Jamshedpur unit overpaid Central Excise duty, which was then availed as Cenvat credit by the appellant unit situated in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The Revenue contended that the excess duty paid by the supplier unit could not be considered as Cenvat credit for the appellant unit based on Circular No. 940/1/2011-CX issued by the CBEC. 2. The Show Cause Notice issued on 21.9.2017 proposed the denial of Cenvat credit to the Bhiwadi unit, leading to the adjudicating authority ordering the reversal of Cenvat credit amounting to ?3,01,32,736/- under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Additionally, interest and penalty equal to the reversed Cenvat credit amount were imposed. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the duty on inputs was duly paid at the supplier unit, justifying the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant unit. 3. The appellant's advocate contended that the reversal of Cenvat credit was unjustified, citing Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, which allows manufacturers to claim credit for duties paid on inputs. The advocate emphasized that the correctness of duty paid by the supplier unit should not be a determining factor for the recipient unit. Referring to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd., the advocate argued in favor of allowing the Cenvat credit to the appellant unit. 4. The Department's representative supported the impugned order, asserting that the excess duty paid by the supplier unit aimed to transfer additional Cenvat credit to that unit. Relying on the CBEC circular dated 14.1.2011, the Department justified the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant unit. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the case, found that the dispute was settled law. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in MDS Switchgear Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that denial of credit based on the supplier's duty payment was unwarranted. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. This detailed analysis highlights the core issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the ultimate decision reached by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI in the cited judgment.
|
