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 overturns rejection of Cenvat Credit due to input shortage, setting precedent for 0.5% threshold.</h1> <h3>Castrol India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II</h3> Castrol India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II - TMI Issues involved:1. Appeal against rejection of Cenvat Credit due to shortage of inputs.2. Interpretation of Tribunal orders regarding allowable loss of input up to 0.5%.3. Consistency of Tribunal decisions on Cenvat Credit for shortage of inputs.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of Cenvat Credit by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs due to shortage of inputs. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit for inputs that were volatile in nature, leading to evaporation and shortage. The Commissioner upheld the demand, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Tribunal.2. The appellant argued that Tribunal orders in their other units had allowed for loss of input up to 0.5%. They cited specific Tribunal orders where it was held that losses up to 0.5% were acceptable, and the appellant had paid duty for shortages beyond that threshold. The jurisdictional Additional Commissioner also dropped a demand based on the 0.5% loss. The Revenue representative agreed that the issue had attained finality with various Tribunal orders.3. The Tribunal analyzed its previous orders related to similar issues. In one case, it was held that losses up to 0.5% were condonable, while in another case, the appeal was allowed based on the Tribunal's previous decision. The Tribunal emphasized that where the shortage of inputs was below 0.5% during the manufacturing process, Cenvat Credit could not be denied. The consistent view of the Tribunal in the appellant's own cases led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on previous rulings and legal interpretations.
TaxTMI 