2018 (4) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal sets aside Commissioner's order on CENVAT credit appeal

Adcock Ingram Ltd Versus Commissioner OF Central Excise, Customs AND Service Tax, Bangalore-I

The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, setting aside the Commissioner's order confirming demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit ... CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - endorsed Bills of Entry consigned to M/S. Sanofi Synthelabo (India) Ltd. - Held that: - issue decided in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Bhopal Versus M/s. S.S. Cropcare Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1140 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that No reference stand made to any of the provisions of law to bar availment of cenvat credit on the basis of endorsed Bill of Entry and credit allowed - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Appeal against Commissioner's order confirming demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules for wrongly availing credit on endorsed Bills of Entry for imported goods.Analysis:The appeal was against the Commissioner's order confirming a demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules for allegedly wrongly availing credit on endorsed Bills of Entry for imported goods. The appellant, a manufacturer of P&P medicaments, had availed CENVAT credit on inputs supplied by a supplier for goods consigned to another company. The Revenue alleged that the appellant wrongly availed credit on these Bills of Entry. The issue was whether the credit availed on the endorsed Bills of Entry for imported goods directly shifted to the appellant's factory was valid. The appellant argued that judicial precedents supported their position, citing their own case and other decisions in favor of the assessee.The learned counsel contended that the impugned order was unsustainable as it ignored judicial precedent. The issue at hand was whether the credit availed on endorsed Bills of Entry for imported goods directly shifted to the appellant's factory was permissible. The appellant relied on their own case and various decisions supporting their position. The learned AR, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the issue was in favor of the assessee based on the appellant's own case and other cited decisions. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order with consequential reliefs.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order, providing relief to the assessee based on the judicial precedents and decisions cited in support of the appellant's position.