2015 (7) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants win cenvat credit case for Additional Customs Duty via DEPB scrips

M/s. Havells India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they were entitled to cenvat credit for Additional Customs Duty paid through DEPB scrips under ... CENVAT Credit - CVD was paid by utilizing DEPB script - the duty had been paid through DEPB scrips in terms of 2002-2007 Foreign Trade Policy. - Exemption under notification no.96/2004-Cus dated 17.09.2004 - Held that:- So far as the cenvat credit of Additional Customs duty paid through DEPB scrips issued under 2002-2007 Foreign Trade Policy in respect of the imports made under notification no.96/2004-Cus is concerned, the only objection of the Department is that while in terms of notification no.96/2004-CE, the benefit of the cenvat credit of additional customs duty paid through DEPB scrips would be admissible only if DEPB scrips had been issued in terms of 2004-2009 Foreign Trade Policy, while in this case, the duty had been paid through DEPB scrips in terms of 2002-2007 Foreign Trade Policy. However, we find that this very issue stands decided in the appellant's favour by the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Neel Kanth Rubber Mills (2010 (4) TMI 281 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT). As regards the cenvat credit of Additional Customs Duty paid through DEPB scrips in respect of the imports made under notification no.34/97-Cus, this issue also stands decided in favour of the appellant's own case for the previous period by the Final Order passed by the Tribunal [2015 (7) TMI 315 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Impugned orders are not sustainable. The same are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Eligibility of cenvat credit for Additional Customs Duty paid through DEPB scrips under different Foreign Trade Policies.Analysis:The judgment involves two appeals concerning the eligibility of cenvat credit for Additional Customs Duty paid through DEPB scrips by manufacturers of MCBs. The Department contended that since the duty was paid under DEPB scrips issued under the 2002-2007 Foreign Trade Policy, the appellants were not entitled to cenvat credit under notification no.96/2004-Cus, which required DEPB scrips issued under the 2004-2009 Foreign Trade Policy. Additionally, the Department raised similar objections for imports made under notification no.34/97-Cus. The Assistant Commissioner/Joint Commissioner confirmed cenvat credit demands against the appellants, leading to these appeals.The appellant's counsel argued that cenvat credit should be allowed based on previous Tribunal orders and a judgment from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Tribunal considered the submissions and examined the relevant notifications and legal precedents. The judgment highlighted the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Neel Kanth Rubber Mills, which supported the appellant's position regarding the admissibility of cenvat credit under notification no.96/2004-Cus. The Tribunal also referenced its own Final Order in the appellant's previous case, which allowed cenvat credit for imports under notification no.34/97-Cus.Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, citing the legal precedents and judgments discussed during the proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the objections raised by the Department regarding the eligibility of cenvat credit for Additional Customs Duty paid through DEPB scrips under different Foreign Trade Policies were not valid. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, granting relief to the appellants.