2015 (3) TMI 386 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - credit availed on Tarpaulin - Held that - During the material period, the appellant paid duty on Tarpaulin under chapter Heading 39 of ₹ 66,58,896/-. It is also seen from the impugned order, demand of duty would be under chapter 63 of ₹ 32,56,316/-. The adjudicating authority observed that the show cause notice is silent as to whether duty is leviable on double side coated fabrics captively consumed in final product classifiable under Chapter 39. The main contention of the learned advocate is that they have paid duty of ₹ 66,58,896/- and the total demand would be only ₹ 32,56,316/. Thus it is clearly evident that they have paid excess duty. There is no material available that any demand was raised on double side coated fabrics captively consumed in the final product. In view of that, we find that they paid duty of ₹ 66,58,896.00 against the demand of ₹ 32,56,316/- and therefore denial of modvat credit of ₹ 12,24,357/- is not justifiable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of cenvat credit on Tarpaulin under different chapter headings during a specific period.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 12,24,357/- related to five show cause notices issued between 16.4.1993 to 20.7.1994. The appellant was involved in manufacturing "Double side PVC coated Nylon Fabrics" and fabricated covers known as "Tarpaulin." The denial of credit was based on the classification of Tarpaulin under different chapter headings. Initially cleared under Chapter Heading 3926.90, it was later classified under Heading 6301. The show cause notices proposed to deny cenvat credit and levy appropriate duty under Chapter 6301. The impugned order indicated discrepancies in duty payments for Tarpaulin under different chapter headings.

During the material period, the appellant paid duty on Tarpaulin under Chapter Heading 39 amounting to Rs. 66,58,896/-. However, the demand of duty under Chapter 63 was Rs. 32,56,316/-. The adjudicating authority highlighted the lack of clarity regarding the duty leviable on double side coated fabrics consumed in the final product. The appellant argued that they had already paid excess duty of Rs. 66,58,896/-, exceeding the total demand of Rs. 32,56,316/-. The absence of any demand raised on the fabrics consumed in the final product supported the appellant's claim. Consequently, the denial of cenvat credit of Rs. 12,24,357/- was deemed unjustifiable.

In light of the discussion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The appellant was not entitled to a refund of the differential duty amount as they had not filed any claim for the same. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the presiding judges.