2020 (6) TMI 14 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - re-credit taken aver reversal - capital goods used for Job work under N/N. 214/86 - HELD THAT - Issue decided in appellant own case M/S. VIKRANT EXTRUSIONS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, DAMAN 2019 (6) TMI 1491 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that the assessee is entitled to take note of as per Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as there is no dispute of the fact that a sum of ₹ 3,21,308/- available as Cenvat credit was in respect of input services, which are given under Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There is no need of filing of refund claim and in such circumstances the appellant could avail the Cenvat Credit which was voluntarily reversed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of reversal of Cenvat Credit, interest, and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand of reversal of Cenvat Credit, interest, and penalty. The appellant had purchased capital goods for Job work of Shed Net and availed credit during August 2011 to March 2012. The appellant reversed the credit during a visit by Central Excise Officers but later re-credited the amount. A notice was issued proposing to disallow the re-credit taken in October 2012. The issue was settled by the tribunal in a previous order, holding the appellants eligible to take credit.

2. The appellant took the balance credit in April 2013 without a Show Cause Notice. The present proceedings were based on a Show Cause Notice issued in 2016 demanding reversal of the entire amount, stating the appellants were not entitled to avail credit on capital goods used for Job work under a specific notification. The appellant cited a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in favor of their eligibility for credit.

3. The tribunal considered the admissibility of capital goods for Job work under the relevant notification. The issue of Suo-motu re-credit taken by the appellant was addressed, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Revenue contended that any reversal should follow Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to prevent unjust enrichment. However, the tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's view, stating that in the case of credit reversal, there was no outflow of funds, and the appellant was entitled to avail the credit without filing a refund claim.

4. The tribunal found that there was no need for a refund claim, and the appellant could avail the Cenvat Credit that was voluntarily reversed. The legality of the credit had already been adjudged in a previous tribunal order in the appellant's case. Therefore, the objection raised by the Revenue did not sustain, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that there was no requirement for the appellant to file a refund claim for the voluntarily reversed credit. The decision was based on the tribunal's previous order in the appellant's case, which had already adjudged the legality of the credit.