2017 (10) TMI 791 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed for Cenvat Credit reversal demand based on precedent. Upheld for consistency with established decisions.

The appeal by M/s. Multi-Flex Lami-Print Ltd. against the demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit was dismissed by the court. The court relied on precedents, ... Reversal of CENVAT credit - suo moto availment of CENVAT credit - Held that: - the facts of the case are identical to the facts in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 78 - CESTAT MUMBAI] as in that case also the duty was paid twice, i.e. once for clearance of goods and another time just debit at the end of month. In the said decision it was held that the appellant were not entitled to suo moto take credit of the same - In the said decision it was held that the appellant were not entitled to suo moto take credit of the same - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues: Appeal against demand of reversal of Cenvat Credit taken by appellant to correct an error made by them.Analysis:1. The appellant, M/s. Multi-Flex Lami-Print Ltd., appealed against the demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit they had taken suo moto to rectify an error. The appellant had prepared an invoice, debited the duty, but no clearance was made against it. Subsequently, the invoice was canceled, and the duty debited in the Cenvat Credit was reversed at a later date.2. Despite no representation from the appellant and no adjournment requests for the past three hearings, the matter was taken up for disposal. The appellant sought to distinguish the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. by highlighting different facts. They relied on various decisions, including Hickson & Dadajee Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals, and S Subramanyan & Co., to support their case.3. The Additional Commissioner (AR) for the respondent relied on the decision of the Larger Bench in BDH Industries Ltd. and another case of Vighnahar SSK Ltd. The presiding Member, after considering the submissions, noted that in the instant case, duty was debited in an invoice, but no goods were cleared against it. This situation was similar to the BDH Industries Ltd. case, where it was held that the appellant was not entitled to take credit suo moto. The Member distinguished the case from Hickson & Dadajee Pvt. Ltd., where goods were brought back into the factory, allowing credit on those invoices as inputs.4. Given the circumstances and precedents, the Member found that the decision of the Larger Bench in the BDH Industries Ltd. case would prevail. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant. The judgment was pronounced in court on 23/08/17.