2017 (7) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, remands physical verification issue for reconsideration

M/s. Clariant Chemicals India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for reversal of cenvat credit on written off inputs. The issue of demand raised on ... CENVAT credit - written off part of the value of the inputs - Held that: - as regard the written off input it is established that firstly the goods in respect of which the value was written off was available in the factory. Therefore the reversal of CENVAT Credit was not required - there was no statutory provision for reversal of credit on the inputs which is written off shown in the books of accounts at the material time said provisions was inserted in Rule 3 by sub-rule (5B) only w.e.f. 11.5.2007 vide amendment N/N. 26/2007-CE (NT) dt. 11.5.2007 - the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 359 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] held that CENVAT credit in respect of the written off input service is not required to be reversed. As regard the physical verification, the appellant have made a categorical submission write from the audit stage to the audit officer and also before the Jurisdictional Departmental Officer that this is related to the shortage of finished goods found during movement between the factory and the depot - as regard the demand related to the physical verification difference the matter is remanded to the original adjudication authority to reconsider this issue. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand. Issues involved:1. Reversal of cenvat credit on the written off value of inputs2. Demand raised on physical verification difference in books of accountsAnalysis:Issue 1: Reversal of cenvat credit on the written off value of inputsThe appellant had written off part of the value of inputs in their books of account, which led to the department issuing a show cause notice for demanding cenvat credit on the written off value. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand. However, the appellant argued that the goods for which the value was written off were physically available in the factory, and there was no statutory provision for reversal of credit on written off inputs at that time. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their argument. The tribunal found that there was no requirement to reverse cenvat credit on written off inputs, as established by previous court decisions. Therefore, the demand related to the written off value of inputs was set aside.Issue 2: Demand raised on physical verification difference in books of accountsThe appellant clarified that the physical verification difference was due to the shortage of finished goods during movement from the factory to the depot, and not related to the written off value of inputs. The tribunal noted that both lower authorities had not considered this clarification and proceeded on the assumption that the entire cenvat credit was related to the written off quantity of inputs. The tribunal directed the matter to be remanded to the original adjudication authority for reconsideration based on the appellant's submissions. The adjudicating authority was instructed to pass a denovo adjudication order within two months, giving the appellant sufficient opportunities of hearing. The demand related to the physical verification difference was to be reconsidered in light of the appellant's correspondence on the matter.In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the reversal of cenvat credit on written off inputs and remanded the issue of demand raised on physical verification difference for further consideration by the adjudicating authority.