Tribunal allows CENVAT credit in intra-unit transfers, distinguishing stock transfers from sales

The tribunal, following the Jairaj Ispat case, overturned the denial of CENVAT credit in a case involving inter-unit stock transfers within M/s. GSP Crop Science Pvt Limited. The decision emphasized the distinction between stock transfers and sales, allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments, citing Rule 9 and supporting court decisions to uphold the appellants' eligibility for CENVAT credit despite observed discrepancies in duty payment between the units.

---

---

Issues:
Inter-unit transfer of stock, denial of CENVAT credit on the basis of supplementary invoices, violation of Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:

Inter-Unit Transfer of Stock:
The case involved M/s. GSP Crop Science Pvt Limited engaged in manufacturing pesticides, with Unit-1 transferring goods to Unit-2 on payment of duty. The Revenue contended that Unit-1 should pay duty based on CAS-4, leading to denial of CENVAT credit to Unit-2. The adjudicating authority upheld the denial, imposing penalties on the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed this decision.

Denial of CENVAT Credit:
The appellants argued that as it was an inter-unit transfer within the same company, allegations of suppression or fraud under Rule 9(1) could not be sustained. They cited various court decisions supporting their position. On the other hand, the Revenue, supported by the Commissioner (Appeals), relied on precedents like the Bosh Chassis Systems case to justify the denial of CENVAT credit based on supplementary invoices.

Violation of Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules:
The tribunal, after considering both sides, found that the Preventive Officers observed the goods transfer and duty payment discrepancy between Unit-1 and Unit-2. The appellants argued that even if fraud or suppression was involved, CENVAT credit should still be available based on Rule 9. The tribunal referenced the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in the Jairaj Ispat case, which supported the appellants' position on stock transfers and CENVAT credit eligibility.

Conclusion:
In line with the Jairaj Ispat case and rejecting the Revenue's arguments, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals filed by the appellants with consequential relief. The decision emphasized the distinction between inter-unit stock transfers and sales, highlighting the applicability of CENVAT credit rules in such scenarios.

---