2023 (3) TMI 231 - HC - Central Excise

Utilisation of CENVAT credit amounting towards payment of BED and SED on the final products - Rule 3 (7)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration as with respect to this very assessment, show cause notice has already been dropped by this Court on 25.01.2007 in CEA No. 140-2006 and even SLP filed against this order has also been dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
2. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding utilization of Additional Duty of Excise (GSI).
3. Dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal and subsequent writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, where a delay of 52 days was condoned for reasons mentioned in the application, leading to the disposal of the application.

2. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning the utilization of Additional Duty of Excise (GSI). The respondent-Company, a manufacturer of tyres, faced a demand for short payment of Additional Excise Duty due to removal of processed tyre cord fabrics without payment of duty. The dispute arose regarding the utilization of cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 4,84,12,584/- towards payment of Basic Excise Duty (BED) and Special Excise Duty (SED) on final products, which was deemed irregular under Rule 3(7)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Adjudicating Officer dropped the proceedings, but the revenue appealed, leading to the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on 20.02.2019. The judgment highlighted the explanation to Rule 3(7)(b) allowing utilization of AED(GSI) paid on or after 01.04.2000 towards BED or SED, supporting the respondent's utilization of cenvat credit for payment of BED/SED.

3. The dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal and subsequent writ petition was based on the lack of substantial question of law for consideration. Previous decisions by the High Court and Supreme Court upheld the respondent's position, emphasizing that no substantial question of law arose in the present case. The judgment concluded that as the issue had already been addressed in previous proceedings, the present appeal was dismissed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of delay condonation, interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding Additional Duty of Excise, and the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal and subsequent writ petition, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.