CENVAT credit on CVD and SAD through duty paying documents allowed despite misclassification allegations under Section 28(1)

CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit availed on CVD and SAD through duty paying documents was eligible despite misclassification allegations. The tribunal found no fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement in the DRI show cause notice issued under Section 28(1). Since appellant captively consumed imported goods and paid duty under protest on TR-6 challans, Rule 9(1)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 did not apply. The bar on credit availment operates only when additional duty becomes recoverable due to fraud or suppression of facts. The demand was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant's availing of CENVAT Credit on CVD and SAD is valid under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Whether the Show Cause Notice issued by DRI alleging misclassification of imported goods affects the eligibility of CENVAT Credit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Availing CENVAT Credit under Rule 9(1)(b)
The appellant availed CENVAT Credit on various capital goods, inputs, and services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. During an audit, it was found that the appellant imported Burnt Lime Lumps, classifying them under CTH No. 25221000 and paying duties accordingly. However, the DRI alleged that the correct classification should be under CTH No. 28259090, leading to a higher duty rate. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued, and the appellant paid the differential duty 'under protest' and availed CVD and SAD as input credit.

The Department argued that under Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, credit cannot be availed if the additional duty became recoverable due to fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, or suppression of facts. However, the Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice issued by DRI under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, did not allege fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, or suppression of facts. Therefore, Rule 9(1)(b) was not applicable.

Issue 2: Impact of DRI's Show Cause Notice on CENVAT Credit Eligibility
The Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notice focused on the classification of the imported goods, which is interpretational in nature, and lacked allegations of fraud or collusion. The appellant had captively consumed the imported goods and did not issue any supplementary invoices for sale. The Tribunal referenced the case of Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore, which held that the prohibition on availing credit on supplementary invoices applies only in cases of sale and not stock transfers.

The Tribunal concluded that since the appellant captively consumed the goods and there were no allegations of fraud or wilful mis-statement, Rule 9(1)(b) did not apply. The Tribunal also distinguished the case from Supreme Petrochem Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, where the Show Cause Notice had alleged wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no reason to apply Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The demand for recovery of credit was deemed unsustainable.

---