2016 (12) TMI 651 - AT - Central Excise

CENAT credit - availment of credit after receipt of goods in the factory - job work - Held that - The Board s Circular No.345/2/2000-TRU dated 29.02.2000 is in favour of the appellant assessee. It is the case of the appellant that only after receipt of the entire lot received in their factory by the job-worker and its reconciliation, they take the credit in their RG-23 Register. So, the submission of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue in respect of the contra-vention of the area based Notification, is not relevant herein. I make it clear that the present order relates to denial of cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit for delay in availing credit immediately after receipt of inputs
- Interpretation of Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Applicability of Board's Circular F.No.345/2/2000-TRU dated 29.08.2000
- Impact of Tribunal's decision in Johnson Matthey Chem.India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur - 2009 (240) ELT 673 (Tri.Mumbai)
- Allegation of erroneous refund due to non-exhaustion of available CENVAT credit

Analysis:

The appeal in this case was filed against the Order-in-Appeal that rejected the appellant's appeal regarding the denial of CENVAT credit. The appellant availed and utilized the credit on inputs after a delay from the period they were received from job workers. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the nature of receiving inputs in lots from job workers, necessitating reconciliation before taking credit. The appellant cited Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and Board's Circular F.No.345/2/2000-TRU dated 29.08.2000 to support their case that immediate credit availing is not mandatory.

The Tribunal's decision in Johnson Matthey Chem.India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE was referenced to highlight that there is no fixed upper time limit for taking credit. The Revenue contended that the delay led to an erroneous refund, relying on a previous Tribunal order. The appellant's argument was that once credit is not taken immediately, it should be considered regular, negating the claim of erroneous refund. The appellant's process of reconciling inputs received in lots from job workers before availing credit was explained.

The Tribunal found that the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to ?9,40,360 was unjustified as the appellant's practice of availing credit after reconciling all inputs received in their factory was in line with the Board's Circular. The Tribunal emphasized that the denial was solely based on the delay in availing credit, which was not a valid ground considering the circumstances of the case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, clarifying that the denial of credit was under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and not related to any contravention of area-based notifications.