2017 (5) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Recipient entitled to claim credit for Central Excise duty paid by supplier. Tribunal affirms recipient's right.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot deny the recipient credit for Central Excise duty paid by the manufacturer-supplier without reassessing the duty ... CENVAT credit - whether the Revenue can without reassessing the Central Excise duty paid at the end of the manufacturer-supplier, deny credit of the said duty paid in the hands of the recipient of such goods, on the premise that no such excise duty ought to have been paid by the manufacturer-supplier? Held that: - the appeals can be disposed of only on the ground that the Revenue was not entitled to question the correctness of the duty paid by the manufacturer, at the end of the recipient of the goods, without there being any challenge to the assessment to duty at the end of the manufacturer - reliance placed in the case of The Commissioner, Central Excise Goa, Versus M/s. Nestle India Ltd., [2011 (6) TMI 164 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that the appeals by the Revenue to the contrary are clearly not maintainable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Whether the Revenue can deny credit of Central Excise duty paid by the manufacturer-supplier in the hands of the recipient without reassessing the duty paid by the manufacturer.Analysis:Issue 1:The main issue in this case is whether the Revenue can deny credit of Central Excise duty paid by the manufacturer-supplier in the hands of the recipient without reassessing the duty paid by the manufacturer. The case involved an agreement between two parties for the supply of goods where the recipient paid the appropriate duty of excise and later paid a differential duty. The Revenue disputed the eligibility of the recipient to claim credit for the differential duty paid by the supplier. The adjudicating authority denied the credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it based on previous Tribunal orders. The Revenue contended that the recipient was not eligible for credit as they did not receive the goods for which the differential duty was paid. However, the recipient argued that the concessional price was agreed upon based on minimum quantity uplift commitments, and no reassessment or refund proceedings were initiated against the manufacturer. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, held that the Revenue cannot question the duty paid by the manufacturer without challenging the assessment on the manufacturer's end. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including CCE vs Nestle India Ltd and Veejee Industrial Enterprises P Ltd vs CCE, to support the recipient's right to claim credit based on the duty paid by the supplier. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the settled law on this matter.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on relevant legal precedents.