2016 (11) TMI 1214 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - alteration in assessable value - impact of credit notes on the transaction value - Held that - any circular issued by C.B.C. is a clarification on the existing provisions of Rules and therefore it is applicable for the entire period for which such Rules and para materia Rules existed on statute - It is very clear from the above circular that when subsequently the supplier allows some trade discount or reduces the price, without reducing the duty paid by him, the duty paid is admissible as Cenvat Credit. It is undisputed that the duty paid by the input manufacturers remained unaltered in the present case even after issue of credit notes. The circular squarely covers the issue involved. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on altered assessable value of inputs.
2. Impact of credit notes on Cenvat Credit availed by the receiver.
3. Applicability of circular on reversal of Cenvat Credit in case of trade discount.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals where a combined Show Cause Notice was issued regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on altered assessable value of inputs. The appellant contended that errors in assessment at the end of manufacturers or suppliers should not affect the availability of credit to the receiver. The Original Authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and imposed penalties on co-noticees based on the Show Cause Notice.

2. The appellants challenged the Order-in-Original before the Tribunal, arguing that they had received the inputs, duty was paid on the inputs, and all required documents were available. They also cited provisions under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, to support their case. The appellants relied on various decisions to support their claim that there was no violation of Cenvat Credit Rules.

3. The appellants presented a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, dated 17/11/2008, to support their argument. The circular clarified that when credit notes are issued, the discount is given in respect of the value of inputs, not the duty paid by the suppliers. The circular emphasized that the duty paid by the input manufacturers remains unaltered even after the issuance of credit notes. The Tribunal held that the circular is a clarification on existing provisions and is applicable for the entire relevant period. Therefore, the duty paid by the manufacturers, as shown in the invoice, is available as Cenvat Credit, irrespective of subsequent price reductions or discounts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original, providing consequential relief. The circular's clarification on the reversal of Cenvat Credit in case of trade discount was deemed applicable to the case at hand, supporting the appellants' claim regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit despite alterations in the assessable value of inputs.