2021 (11) TMI 657 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules and not filing proper declaration for availing the said credit - transitional credit as prescribed under N/N. 25/03-CE (NT) dated 25.03.2003 and N/N. 4/03- CE(NT) dated 30.04.2003 - HELD THAT - The appellant have filed declaration of stock to the department which was verified by the Range Superintendent - As per the above report it can be seen that after proper verification some discrepancy was found for ₹ 1, 50,250/- which was reversed by the appellant. As per the procedure the proper stock verification was conducted by the Superintendent thereafter the Adjudicating Authority seeking further verification of all the records is unwarranted. We are of the view that the aforesaid verification report is conclusive one therefore; no further material is required for establishing the stock lying in the factory of the appellant as on 31.03.2004. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the direction given by the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 19.11.2010. The appellant have complied with the procedure prescribed for availing transitional credit in respect of the stock lying as on 31.03.2004. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the Cenvat Credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved: Denial of cenvat credit for not following Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules and not filing proper declaration for availing credit, transitional credit as per Notification No. 25/03-CE (NT) dated 25.03.2003 and 4./03-CE(NT) dated 30.04.2003.

Analysis:

The appellant's counsel argued that this was the second appeal round, with the Tribunal having previously remanded the matter for stock verification as of 01.04.2003. The appellant had filed the required declaration, and the Range Superintendent conducted proper verification. Despite this, the Adjudicating Authority sought further verification, which was deemed unreasonable due to the lapse of time. Reference was made to a similar case decided by the Tribunal.

The revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and records, noting its previous order that settled the legal issue and remanded for stock verification. The Tribunal cited various decisions supporting that as long as there is no dispute about the stock, credit cannot be denied on procedural grounds. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded for stock verification, emphasizing that the legal issue had been resolved in the appellant's favor.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the prescribed procedure for transitional credit regarding the stock as of 31.03.2004. Consequently, there was no justification to deny the Cenvat Credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.

The judgment was pronounced in open court on 18.11.2021.