2014 (2) TMI 354 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Inputs written off in the Books of Accounts - Held that - The credit can be denied to an assessee under the rule only on two grounds, firstly for having not used the inputs in the manufacture of goods and secondly for having removed the inputs as such. The credit cannot be denied to the assessee for having failed to utilize the inputs for a long time or for having written off the value of the inputs in the books, when those had not been removed by them from the factory as such. In the case in hand, none of the conditions laid down in rule 57-F for denying modvat credit to the appellants, stands satisfied. Therefore, for merely writing off value of the inputs in their books, they could not be denied the credits, when inputs were still lying in their factory premises - Following decision of CCE vs Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. 2005 (1) TMI 175 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of CENVAT credit availed on inputs written off in the Books of Accounts.
2. Denial of credit on inputs written off as obsolete.
3. Closure of factory affecting the availability of inputs for manufacturing final products.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the reversal of CENVAT credit availed on inputs written off in the Books of Accounts. The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which set aside the adjudication order. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the inputs were still available in the factory of the respondent, there was no liability to reverse the credit availed on such inputs, even though they were written off during a specific period.

2. The Revenue contended that the inputs had become obsolete and could not be used in the manufacturing process of the final product. Therefore, they argued that the credit should not be allowed on inputs that were written off as obsolete. Additionally, due to the closure of the factory, the inputs could no longer be utilized for manufacturing final products, leading to the assertion that the credit availed on such inputs needed to be reversed.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision in the case of Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. to support the conclusion that if inputs were still present in the factory premises, the credit availed on those inputs did not need to be reversed, even if they were previously written off in the books. The Appellate Tribunal, upholding the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), stated that in the absence of any contrary decision presented by the Revenue, there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the rationale behind the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.