9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 490 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - defective goods returned by the customer in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - sole allegation of Revenue is that the appellant have taken Suo moto credit instated of filling refund claim - Held that - There was serious error on the part of the audit officer for insisting to reverse the credit on the returned goods. The appellant after reversal of the credit, requested the Deputy Commissioner to allow the re-credit of the same as there was no reason for denial of the credit. The Deputy Commissioner has not acted on the the request, therefore, the appellant have taken suo moto credit - it is clear case of harassment to the assessee by the departmental officer. Suo moto re-credit - Held that - The appellant was legally entitled for the Cenvat credit under Rule 16 for which no permission is required, even the suo moto re-credit is also is with reference to Rule 16 and since under Rule 16 on permission was required there was no need for waiting of formal permission from the department - so long the department has no objection on merit on the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit under Rule 16, the appellant has rightly taken the credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on returned goods under Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Legality of re-crediting Cenvat credit suo moto. 3. Departmental audit objection and its implications on Cenvat credit reversal. Analysis: Issue 1: Admissibility of Cenvat credit on returned goods under Rule 16 The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed Cenvat credit on defective goods returned by customers under Rule 16. The audit raised objections, insisting on credit reversal, despite Rule 16 allowing such credits. The appellant, after reversal, requested re-credit, which was not responded to by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal found the audit objection baseless, as Rule 16 permits such credits. The appellant's action was deemed legitimate, and the denial of credit was seen as unjust harassment by departmental officers. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the Cenvat credit. Issue 2: Legality of re-crediting Cenvat credit suo moto The appellant, after the initial reversal, re-credited the Cenvat credit suo moto, as no response was received for the re-credit request. The Tribunal held that the appellant was legally entitled to the Cenvat credit under Rule 16, without requiring formal permission for re-credit. Suo moto re-credit was deemed permissible under Rule 16, as no prior authorization was necessary. The Tribunal emphasized that Cenvat credits do not mandate permission, and the appellant's action was within the legal framework. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal supported the appellant's right to re-credit the Cenvat amount suo moto. Issue 3: Departmental audit objection and its implications The audit objection regarding Cenvat credit reversal was found to lack merit, as Rule 16 explicitly allows such credits. The Tribunal criticized the audit officer for insisting on credit reversal without providing valid reasons or statutory provisions. The Tribunal deemed the audit objection erroneous and highlighted the department's failure to justify the denial of credit. The Tribunal concluded that the department's actions amounted to harassment of the appellant. The Tribunal overturned the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's rightful entitlement to the Cenvat credit and allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant, highlighting the legality of availing Cenvat credit on returned goods under Rule 16 and the permissibility of re-crediting the amount suo moto. The Tribunal criticized the departmental audit objection as baseless and upheld the appellant's right to the Cenvat credit.
|
