2018 (1) TMI 417 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows Revenue's appeal on credit reversal for transfer of capital goods.

Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Deluxe Recycling (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal against the dropping of demand for reversal of credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the transfer of ... CENVAT credit - capital goods - goods sent to sister unit not received back, as destroyed by fire - Held that: - After availing the credit in 2009 the appellant would have required to pay the said amount after expiry of 180 days to the Revenue and although the same amount would have been available as credit to the sister unit still Government would have received money in cash. Moreover, the amendment and the pattern of utilization of Cenvat Credit in both the units also has not been declared - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. Issues:- Appeal against dropping demand of reversal of credit against M/s. Deluxe Recycling (India) Pvt. Ltd. based on the transfer of capital goods to sister unit and subsequent destruction of the machine.Analysis:- The Revenue filed an appeal against the dropping of demand for reversal of credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the transfer of capital goods to a sister unit and the subsequent destruction of the machine. The respondent failed to return the goods within 180 days as required by Rule 4 (5) (a), citing a fire accident as the reason for non-return.- The Revenue argued that the situation was not revenue neutral as the utilization of credit by the sister unit was not examined, and no evidence of the machine's destruction was provided. The respondent's delay in informing the Revenue about the machine's destruction raised suspicions of an intention to evade duty payment.- The respondent contended that they had informed about the destruction of inputs but not the capital goods. They also cited a Tribunal decision in Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. case, stating that reversal of credit cannot be demanded in such circumstances.- The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that in a similar case, where the machine was not found in the sister unit, the benefit was not allowed. The Tribunal referred to Rule 4 (5) (a) which mandates the return of goods within 180 days. The failure to return the machine meant the appellant should have paid the equivalent credit amount to the Revenue.- The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's appeal, as the situation was not revenue neutral, and the appellant should have paid the amount after 180 days. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the original order was restored.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's reasoning in allowing the Revenue's appeal.