2022 (8) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - CVD paid through Challan - non-fulfilment of export obligation - case of the department is that the challan is not a proper document in terms of Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 - whether the appellant is entitled for the cenvat credit on the strength of challan whereby the CVD was paid subsequent to the import of goods? - HELD THAT - The very same issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of HUBERGROUP INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -DAMAN 2021 (11) TMI 945 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that in the instance case the original duty paying document is bill of entry and the challans are the documents on the strength of which additional duty has been paid. Thus, even going by the logic given by the Commissioner in the impugned order there is no bar on availing credit on the strength of challans. Thus, we find no merit in this argument of the Commissioner in the impugned order. The issue is no longer res integra - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to cenvat credit in respect of CVD paid through Challan under Rule 9 of CCR, 2004.

Analysis:
- The appellant claimed cenvat credit for CVD paid through challan due to unfulfilled export obligation, referencing the Bill of entry for imported goods. The department argued that challan is not a proper document per Rule 9 of CCR, 2004.
- The Tribunal considered previous judgments and held that the availability of cenvat credit depends on duty payment, admissible inputs, and receipt, not on the reason for payment. The merger of units within the same legal entity supports credit transfer. The absence of fraud or collusion negates the department's objection.
- Addressing the issue of document validity, the Tribunal noted Rule 9(1)(b) allowing credit on challans for additional duty payments. The original bill of entry and subsequent challans for additional duty payment were deemed valid for cenvat credit, irrespective of the reason for payment.
- Regarding the delay in availing credit, the Tribunal found no significant delay in the appellant's case, rejecting the Commissioner's argument based on the interpretation of the term "immediate" from a previous case.
- Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules on credit transfer due to merger was discussed. The Tribunal determined that the appellant's case did not fall under Rule 10 as the duty payment post-merger was not covered by the rule's provisions.
- Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order, setting it aside and allowing the appeal based on the established principles from previous judgments and the specific circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment thoroughly examines the issues surrounding the entitlement to cenvat credit for CVD paid through Challan, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision and the legal principles applied.