2008 (10) TMI 407 - AT - Central Excise

Court Upholds Excess Duty Credit Demand, Emphasizes Statutory Provisions

BISLERI INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI

BISLERI INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 543 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Demand of excess duty credit availed by the appellants on inputs received from an EOU.2. Interpretation of sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding entitlement to credit for inputs received from a 100% EOU.Issue 1:The original authority had demanded 50% of the duty credit availed by the appellants on inputs supplied by an EOU, as the EOU had paid duty at a lower rate. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this demand, leading to an appeal by the appellants. The appellant contended that they were entitled to the entire credit of duty paid on the inputs as per the accompanying invoices, and the jurisdictional authorities could not revise this entitlement. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that the recipient manufacturer can avail the benefit of duty paid by the supplier-manufacturer without contestation. However, the lower authorities found that the entitlement to credit for inputs received from an EOU is regulated by sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of CCR 2004, which prescribes a specific formula to determine the admissible credit. The excess credit availed by the appellants compared to the admissible credit as per the formula was demanded by the original authority, and this determination was upheld in the impugned order.Issue 2:The appeal also involved the interpretation of sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of CCR 2004, which governs the entitlement to CENVAT credit for inputs received from a 100% EOU. The rule specifies a formula to calculate the admissible credit as 50% of the basic customs duty and CVD payable on the inputs if they were imported. The Lower authorities correctly applied this sub-rule to determine the entitlement of the appellants to credit for the inputs received during the material period. The judgment emphasized that the entitlement to input credit when a manufacturer receives inputs from an EOU is governed by the statutory provisions, and the determination of availability of input credit was upheld as correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as lacking in merits.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of demand for excess duty credit availed by the appellants on inputs received from an EOU and the interpretation of sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of CCR 2004 regarding entitlement to credit for such inputs. The decision upheld the original authority's demand based on the specific formula provided in the rule and dismissed the appeal for lacking merit in challenging the determination of input credit availability.