2019 (7) TMI 898 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of the amount paid against the Cenvat Credit - Credit pertaining to one unit utilised by other separate unit for payment of duty on goods cleared prior to common single registration - HELD THAT - The issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of M/S MANGALAM CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE, UDAIPUR 2017 (5) TMI 745 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and it has been held that cenvat credit of capital goods and other input services which have been taken by the appellant with regard to the setting of Mangalam Grinding Unit (MGU) even prior to obtaining single registration, will be available to the appellant firm for utilisation of these credits for payment of Central Excise duty for the finished goods cleared from Unit No. 1. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for refund of Cenvat Credit utilized by one unit for payment of duty on goods cleared by another unit prior to common single registration.
2. Legality of revocation of amended registration.
3. Appropriateness of Cenvat Credit utilization before the grant of single registration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Refund of Cenvat Credit:
The primary issue revolves around whether the respondent-assessee is eligible for a refund of the Cenvat Credit utilized by one unit for payment of duty on goods cleared by another unit before obtaining a common single registration. The Tribunal noted that the respondent-assessee was allotted a single contiguous piece of land and had established a new grinding unit, M/s. Manglam Grinding Unit (MGU), on the same plot. Despite the distance of approximately 2 km between the units, the respondent-assessee had installed a dedicated conveyor belt for transport. The Assistant Commissioner initially accepted the application for amended registration, which included MGU, but later revoked it without explanation. The Tribunal highlighted that the Hon'ble High Court had stayed the recovery of credits availed in the interim period, and the respondent-assessee paid an amount of ?7,04,29,992/- under protest. The Tribunal concluded that the issue had already been settled in favor of the respondent-assessee, granting them the right to utilize the Cenvat Credit for payment of duty on goods cleared from Unit No. 1.

2. Legality of Revocation of Amended Registration:
The legality of the revocation of the amended registration was challenged by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Deputy Commissioner of Kota Division revoked the amended registration without providing any explanation. The respondent-assessee challenged this revocation before the Hon'ble High Court, which resulted in an interim order staying the recovery of credits. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also set aside the revocation order and restored the amendment to the Central Excise registration, including MGU. The Tribunal affirmed that the revocation of the amended registration was not legally sustainable, and the respondent-assessee was entitled to the benefits of the amended registration.

3. Appropriateness of Cenvat Credit Utilization Before Single Registration:
The Tribunal examined whether the utilization of Cenvat Credit on capital goods and input services for setting up MGU before obtaining a single registration was appropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that the procurement of capital goods and utilization of input services for setting up MGU happened before the unit was ready to start manufacturing. The appellant had approached the department for amending the registration to include MGU, which was later granted. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, which supported the view that credit on capital goods and input services should not be denied merely because it was availed before the date of registration. The Tribunal concluded that the credit on capital goods availed for setting up MGU prior to the grant of single registration was valid and should be allowed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no shortcomings in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the decision to allow the refund of the amount deposited by the respondent-assessee. The Department's appeal was dismissed, affirming that the respondent-assessee was entitled to utilize the Cenvat Credit for payment of duty on goods cleared from Unit No. 1, even before obtaining a single registration. The Tribunal's decision was based on the established legal principles and precedents, ensuring that the respondent-assessee's rights were protected.