9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 615 - AT - Central ExciseDelayed availment of cenvat credit on capital goods by the appellant - subsequent recovery of an alleged excess refund by the department - HELD THAT - There is no truth in the allegation of the department that the appellant has been sanctioned excess refund in the month of April 2012 because they have not availed the balance 50% of the capital goods credit in the month of April 2012 itself. The delayed availment of cenvat credit of the balance 50% excise duty suffered on capital goods in the month May 2012 instead of April 2012 in this case, did not affect the overall entitlement of refund for the relevant financial year. Accordingly, the recovery of excess refund of Rs.3,52,093 vide the impugned order is not sustainable and hence the same is set aside. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved: The issue involved in this case is regarding the delayed availment of cenvat credit on capital goods by the appellant and the subsequent recovery of an alleged excess refund by the department.
Summary: Issue 1: Delayed Availment of Cenvat Credit The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, availed cenvat credit on capital goods in May 2012 instead of April 2012. The department contended that the appellant should have availed the credit in April 2012. The appellant argued that Rule 4(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules allows for availing the credit in the succeeding financial year. They cited a similar case where delayed utilization of credit was allowed by CESTAT, Delhi. The appellant maintained that the delayed availment did not impact the refundable amount due to a value addition ceiling of 36%. Issue 2: Alleged Excess Refund The department alleged that the refund granted in April 2012 was in excess due to the delayed availment of cenvat credit. However, a comparative analysis of refund amounts for April and May 2012 showed no impact on the refundable amount. The Tribunal observed that the delayed availment did not affect the overall entitlement of refund for the relevant financial year. Consequently, the recovery of the alleged excess refund was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, providing consequential relief as per law.
|
