2010 (11) TMI 820 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants credit for inputs in work in progress & finished goods under Rule 3(2)

EUREKA CONVEYOR BELTINGS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR

EUREKA CONVEYOR BELTINGS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR - 2011 (272) E.L.T. 285 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Credit denial under Notification No. 8/03-C.E. for inputs in working process and finished goods.Analysis:The appellant appealed against the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 77,618 under Notification No. 8/03-C.E., claiming the inputs went into the working process and finished goods in their stock during the exemption period. The appellant was availing the SSI exemption under the said notification but crossed the limit on a specific date, prompting them to maintain statutory records and claim credit for inputs on that date. However, upon physical verification, the officer found discrepancies in verifying the inputs in the working process and finished goods, leading to the denial of credit. The issue at hand was whether the appellant was entitled to claim credit under Rule 3(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for inputs in the working process and finished goods.The appellant's representative argued that as per the inspection report, the inventory of inputs, including work in progress and finished goods, was available in the factory. Referring to Rule 3(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it was contended that the appellant had the right to claim credit for inputs in the working process and finished goods, despite any record-keeping shortcomings. On the contrary, the SDR contended that the appellant failed to provide essential data regarding inputs in work in progress and finished goods, shifting the onus of proof onto the appellant, which they failed to discharge. Consequently, the lower authority's denial of credit was deemed appropriate.Upon hearing both sides and considering the submissions, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to credit under Rule 3(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for inputs in work in progress and finished goods. However, the dispute centered on determining the exact quantity of inputs in the working process and finished goods. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for further examination. The authority was tasked with ascertaining the input quantity using the input and output ratio formula to determine the credit claimable by the manufacturer. The appellant was directed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority during this process. As a result, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case before a final decision is made.