9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 687 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - non-deposit of mandatory pre-deposit as envisaged under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Rule 3(1) of the 2004 Rules provides that a manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output service shall be allowed to take credit, which is called CENVAT Credit, in respect of the items indicated therein. Rule 3(4) provides that CENVAT credit may be utilised for payment in connection with the items indicated therein from (a) to (e). Rule 3(4) does not appear to be exhaustive and it does not impose any prohibition prohibiting an assessee from availing such credit for the purpose of pre-deposit. Appeal not maintainable and is dismissed.
Issues:
- Utilization of CENVAT credit for pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Interpretation of Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. - Validity of utilizing CENVAT credit for payment of pre-deposit. - Impact of relevant judicial precedents on the current case. - Applicability of circulars issued by CESTAT. - Monetary limits for filing appeals in High Courts. Utilization of CENVAT Credit for Pre-Deposit: The appeal before the High Court challenged the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding the utilization of CENVAT credit for pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the view taken by CESTAT allowing the use of CENVAT credit for pre-deposit was erroneous and not sustainable in law. The respondent, on the other hand, supported the CESTAT's decision, citing consistency in such views and referring to a circular issued by CESTAT allowing appeals to be registered if the mandatory deposit is made from the CENVAT account. The appellant contended that there is a substantial question of law regarding the permissibility of utilizing CENVAT credit for pre-deposit. Interpretation of Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The High Court analyzed Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which allows for the utilization of CENVAT credit for payment in connection with specified items. The Court noted that Rule 3(4) does not explicitly prohibit an assessee from using such credit for the purpose of pre-deposit. Additionally, the Court agreed with the High Court of Gujarat's observation that the credit in an assessee's CENVAT account represents a duty already suffered, supporting the permissibility of utilizing CENVAT credit for pre-deposit. Impact of Relevant Judicial Precedents: The Court referred to judgments in cases like Akshay Steel Works Private Limited and Cadila Health Care Private Limited, where High Courts upheld the permissibility of adjusting CENVAT credit against the requirement of making a pre-deposit under Section 35F of the 1944 Act. These decisions were considered relevant in the current case, indicating a consistent judicial approach supporting the utilization of CENVAT credit for pre-deposit. Applicability of Circulars and Monetary Limits: The respondent highlighted a circular issued by CESTAT in 2014, allowing appeals to be registered if the mandatory deposit is made from the CENVAT account. Furthermore, the respondent mentioned an instruction from the Ministry of Finance in 2019 regarding the reduction of government litigation and raised monetary limits for filing appeals. The dispute in the present case revolved around an amount of ?26,61,621, falling within the enhanced monetary limit of ?1 Crore for filing appeals before the High Court. Conclusion: Considering the lack of appeals against the relevant judgments before the Supreme Court, the current litigation policy restricting appeals below ?1 Crore to be filed before the High Court, and the consistent judicial stance on the issue, the High Court found no grounds to admit the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of based on the existing legal framework and precedents.
|
