2012 (3) TMI 358 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT AHMEDABAD Grants Waiver in Cenvat Credit Case

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD allowed the appellant's stay petition for the waiver of pre-deposit concerning the denial of cenvat credit, ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - No Bill of entry filed - Held that:- jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner can allow CENVAT Credit, if he is satisfied that the duty has been paid and goods have been actually used. as a matter of fact, all these details are available except the name and the address of the factory on the bill of entry. The only omission was that instead of endorsing the bill of entry itself in name of the assessee, the importer has issued separate certificate/declaration - Therefore, same has to be considered as part of the bill of entry and both of them cannot be segregated and seen in isolation as done by the Department - Following decision of CCE. & C., VADODARA-II Versus EUPEC-WELSPUN PIPE COATINGS INDIA LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 561 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Waiver of pre-deposit of cenvat credit denial amount, interest, and penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The appellant filed a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of a substantial amount due to the denial of cenvat credit, interest, and penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that the issue in question had already been decided in favor of the appellant by a previous judgment upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for the waiver of the pre-deposit and proceeded to take up the appeal for disposal.Fabrication for Tata Chemicals Ltd.:The appellant was involved in fabricating items for Tata Chemicals Ltd., where steel pipes and alloy metals were imported by Tata Chemicals Ltd. and directly sent to the appellant's factory under the bill of entry endorsed by Tata Chemicals Ltd. The adjudicating authority demanded cenvat credit based on the appellant's failure to import the goods and Tata Chemicals Ltd.'s omission to indicate the appellant as the supporting manufacturer. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee, and this decision was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's Special Leave Petition.Judicial Interpretation and Precedent:The Tribunal examined the details of the case, highlighting the undisputed receipt of goods by the appellant under the bill of entry endorsed by Tata Chemicals Ltd. The Tribunal referred to a specific ruling that emphasized the importance of certain details on documents for the allowance of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal reiterated that as long as essential details such as payment of duty, description of goods, assessable value, and factory details were present, the credit could not be denied solely based on technical omissions. The Tribunal emphasized that the omission of the factory name in the bill of entry was not substantial enough to deny the credit, especially when the goods were actually used.Decision and Dismissal of Appeal:Based on the precedent set by the High Court and the Supreme Court in a similar case, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was to be set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to the waiver of pre-deposit and upheld the decision in line with the previous judgments. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant rules and the application of legal principles established through previous judicial decisions.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment provides a detailed understanding of the issues involved, the legal arguments presented, the judicial interpretation applied, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.