2016 (12) TMI 203 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - reverse charge mechanism - Held that - It has already been held in the case of the same appellant viz., M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai -III 2016 (5) TMI 1283 - CESTAT CHENNAI that under reverse charge mechanism, the recipient of service tax is not barred to take credit thereof unless law otherwise requires. There is nothing on record to show the law relating to inadmissibility of the credit claimed by appellant. Accordingly, the Cenvat credit of the service tax claimed by appellant is allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Reversal of Cenvat credit, Use of goods in manufacture, Allegation of diversification of materials, Claim of Cenvat credit for service tax paid

Reversal of Cenvat credit:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the reversal of Cenvat credit by the appellant. The Revenue contends that although the appellant reversed the credit, the destination of the goods remains unclear, casting doubt on whether they were used in manufacturing. This lack of clarity leads to the disallowance of the service tax credit claimed by the appellant.

Use of goods in manufacture:
The appellant argues that the goods cleared were not directly sold but transferred to a sister concern for manufacturing purposes. They assert that there was no investigation by Revenue to support allegations of diversification of materials. The absence of contradictory evidence implies that the goods were indeed utilized by the sister concern for manufacturing, despite the physical separation of the manufacturing site from the clearance site. The service tax paid for transporting the inputs is claimed as Cenvat credit by the appellant.

Allegation of diversification of materials:
The appellant refutes the allegation of diversification of materials by highlighting the transfer of goods to the sister concern for manufacturing. They emphasize the lack of evidence supporting the claim of no utilization of the cleared goods in the manufacturing process. The appellant clarifies that the manufacturing activity occurs at a different location from where the inputs were cleared, justifying the transportation-related service tax claimed as Cenvat credit.

Claim of Cenvat credit for service tax paid:
Drawing on a previous ruling involving the same appellant, it is established that under the reverse charge mechanism, the recipient of service tax can claim credit unless specifically prohibited by law. As there is no legal provision barring the appellant from claiming the Cenvat credit for the service tax paid, the Tribunal allows the credit claimed by the appellant, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment underscores the complexities surrounding the reversal of Cenvat credit, the utilization of goods in manufacturing, the absence of evidence supporting diversification allegations, and the admissibility of Cenvat credit for service tax paid, culminating in a favorable outcome for the appellant based on legal precedents and evidentiary considerations.