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 grants relief in appeal, deems debiting/reversing Cenvat credit as rectification, not unjust enrichment.</h1> <h3>BAYER CROP SCIENCE LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-II</h3> BAYER CROP SCIENCE LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-II - 2013 (298) E.L.T. 260 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Whether the appellant was justified in debiting Cenvat credit account and subsequently reversing it due to non-issuance of a certificate for export of raw materialRs.2. Whether the decision in the case of BDH Industries is applicable to the present caseRs.3. Whether the reversal and re-credit of Cenvat credit by the appellant were in compliance with the lawRs.4. Whether the appellant should have filed a refund claim instead of taking suo motu creditRs.5. Whether the appellant was required to file a refund claim for the temporary reversal of credit pending removal of raw materialsRs.Analysis:1. The appellant debited and subsequently reversed Rs. 3,81,210 in their Cenvat credit account for imported raw material intended for export. The Tribunal noted that the reversal was made in anticipation of a certificate for export, which was not issued, leading to proceedings and penalty imposition under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. The Tribunal considered the decision in the case of BDH Industries and the appellant's argument that it was not applicable. The appellant contended that the situation in BDH Industries involved duty payment, unlike their case of correction of an entry. The Tribunal observed that the nature of the reversal did not warrant a refund claim as it was not related to actual removal of goods.3. The Tribunal analyzed the reversal and re-credit actions of the appellant, emphasizing that the reversal was for proposed clearances that did not occur. It highlighted that duty is only payable upon actual removal of goods, which did not happen in this case. The appellant's actions were seen as rectification entries rather than unjust enrichment.4. The Tribunal examined whether the appellant should have filed a refund claim instead of taking suo motu credit. It differentiated the present case from the BDH Industries decision, emphasizing that the reversal and re-credit were procedural steps due to the non-occurrence of proposed clearances.5. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions did not necessitate a refund claim, as the reversal was pending the export certificate issuance. The re-credit was viewed as a rectification entry, aligning with the decision in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing relief to the appellant based on the unique circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 