TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal waives pre-deposit, stays recovery on cenvat credit dispute.</h1> <h3>M/s. Svc. Superchem Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Lucknow</h3> M/s. Svc. Superchem Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Lucknow - TMI Issues:1. Denial of cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing Purified Terepthelic Acid (PTA) due to plant closure.2. Adjudication of cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty by the Commissioner.3. Appeal against the Commissioner's order confirming the cenvat credit demand.Analysis:1. The appellant set up a plant for manufacturing PTA in 1997, with manufacturing activities starting in September 1999. Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,27,95,483 was taken for various inputs from November 1997 to March 1999. Due to subpar product quantity, manufacturing ceased in August 2000, although finished products continued to be sold until April 2008. The department issued show cause notices for cenvat credit demand, which was partially dropped by the Commissioner in 2004. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-adjudication, emphasizing the usage of inputs for PTA manufacturing. The Commissioner, in a subsequent order, confirmed the cenvat credit demand, interest, and imposed a penalty, leading to the current appeal.2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that all inputs were utilized for manufacturing, with a significant quantity of PTA cleared on duty payment. The Commissioner's order acknowledged these facts but still upheld the cenvat credit demand. In response, the Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner's decision.3. Upon review, the Tribunal found that a substantial amount of PTA was manufactured and cleared post-2000, indicating the input utilization for production. The presence of work-in-progress and finished goods in stock does not warrant cenvat credit denial, as long as inputs are used for manufacturing final products. Since the inputs were not cleared as such, the denial of cenvat credit appeared unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for the appeal and stayed the recovery of cenvat credit demand, interest, and penalty until the appeal's resolution. The stay application was granted in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 