2018 (6) TMI 625 - AT - Central Excise

Dispute over CENVAT credit on defective batteries resolved in favor of appellant

The appeal involved a dispute over the admissibility of CENVAT credit on defective dry cell batteries. The Revenue argued that as no duty was paid on ... CENVAT credit - inputs used in manufacture of defective batteries on which duty is not paid - Held that:- The issue is squarely covered by the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in appellant’s own case EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & S.T., NOIDA [2016 (8) TMI 541 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], where it was held that CBEC instructions stand in or valued during the relevant period and hence Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the waste, refuse or bye products - SCN not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Admissibility of CENVAT credit on defective dry cell batteries.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit on defective dry cell batteries manufactured by M/s Eveready Industries India Ltd. The Revenue contended that since no duty was paid on defective batteries, the CENVAT credit going into their manufacture was not admissible. A show cause notice was issued proposing the recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 5,20,010 involved in defective batteries cleared during a specific period. The Original authority upheld the demand in the show cause notice and imposed a penalty, rejecting the appellant's contentions. The appellant argued that defective batteries were waste and scrap, not subject to duty, and relied on various legal provisions and precedents to support their case.The Learned Counsel for the appellant also cited a precedent ruling of a Division Bench of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case, where it was held that CENVAT credit is admissible in respect of inputs contained in waste, refuse, or by-products. The Revenue, however, relied on the impugned order upholding the demand. After considering the arguments and facts on record, the Member (Judicial) found that the issue was squarely covered by the precedent ruling in the appellant's favor. Therefore, the show cause notice was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits to the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issue of admissibility of CENVAT credit on defective dry cell batteries in favor of the appellant, based on a precedent ruling in their own case. The decision highlighted the importance of legal interpretations and precedents in tax matters, emphasizing the need for consistency in applying tax laws and principles.