2014 (4) TMI 8 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Value of goods written off in books of accounts - Held that - Goods have been used in the manufacture of excisable goods, subsequent to issue of impugned order - during the relevant time rules did not require reversal of credit when value of inputs was only partially written off. In respect of work in progress also we see merit in the argument of the appellant because the goods are used in manufacturing activity once it reaches the stage of work-in progress - In view of subsequent developments claimed by the appellant, which are relevant for determining liability, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of claims on facts and deciding afresh on the legal issues raised - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 3 (5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding reversal of Cenvat credit on provisions made for write-offs.
2. Applicability of Rule 3 (5B) to provisions made for work in progress.
3. Acceptance of a certificate from a Chartered Accountant as evidence.
4. Requirement to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for verification of claims and fresh decision.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Rule 3 (5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning the reversal of Cenvat credit on provisions made for write-offs. The appellant, a manufacturer of Load Cells, had provisions for writing off raw materials not used for specific durations. The Revenue contended that Cenvat credit should have been reversed based on these provisions, leading to a demand of duty. The appellant argued that prior to an amendment in 2011, there was no need to reverse credit for partial write-offs, which was the crux of the dispute.

2. Another issue addressed was the applicability of Rule 3 (5B) to provisions made for work in progress. The appellant argued that the rule did not explicitly cover materials issued for work in progress. They highlighted that the disputed inputs were eventually used in manufacturing excisable goods, and the provision had been reversed accordingly. The appellant sought a remand for verification of these claims.

3. The acceptance of a certificate from a Chartered Accountant as evidence was also debated. The Revenue objected to a certificate issued shortly before the hearing, questioning its validity as evidence. This raised concerns about the timing and admissibility of the certificate in the proceedings.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. Considering subsequent developments claimed by the appellant, the Tribunal found it necessary to verify the facts and legal issues raised. The decision to remand the case aimed to ensure a thorough examination of all relevant aspects before reaching a final conclusion.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues and arguments presented in the judgment, shedding light on the nuances of the legal dispute and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further consideration.