Appeal allowed for recovery of erroneously availed CENVAT credit. Decision on bulk procurement of base oil and lubricating oils.

The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant regarding the recovery of erroneously availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 72,98,407 between November 2004 and January 2010. The issue centered on the availment of CENVAT credit against duties paid on bulk procurement of base oil and lubricating oils, not reversed to the extent of actual receipt. Citing previous Tribunal decisions and relevant precedents, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was granted on 14th June 2019 by the tribunal members, HON'BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL), and HON'BLE AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).

---

---

Issues:
- Availment of CENVAT credit against duties paid on procurement of base oil and other lubricating oils.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order confirming the recovery of erroneously availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 72,98,407 between November 2004 and January 2010, along with penalties and interest. The core issue revolved around the availment of CENVAT credit against duties paid on the procurement of base oil and other lubricating oils in bulk, which were not reversed to the extent of actual receipt at the appellant's premises.

The appellant's counsel argued that a similar issue had been resolved in their favor by a previous Tribunal decision in their own case, citing order no. A/91531/17 dated 15th December 2017, which disposed of appeal no. E/85340/2017 against order-in-appeal no. PK/149/BEL/2016 dated 8th December 2016. The Tribunal examined the cited order and noted that it had settled the issue based on previous Tribunal decisions in the appellant's matter. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to precedents like Neera Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [1998 (104) ELT 382 (T)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg Co Ltd [1998 (97) ELT 101 (T)], which supported the appellant's position on the recovery of duty due to discrepancies in quantity paid for and actual receipt.

Considering the precedents and the settlement of the issue in the appellant's favor in previous Tribunal decisions, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The decision was pronounced in open court on 14th June 2019 by the members of the tribunal, namely HON’BLE MR C J MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) and HON’BLE AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).

---