Tribunal Overturns Order on CENVAT Credit Recovery, Cites Lack of Evidence; Case Sent for Reassessment.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order regarding the recovery of central excise duties and irregular availment of CENVAT Credit by the assessee. It found that the disallowance of credit lacked proper justification and was based on insufficient evidence. The case was remanded to the original authority for a fresh determination, requiring a review of the facts and judicial precedents cited by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of factual evidence to support claims of ineligibility in credit availing.

---

---

Issues involved: Recovery of duties of central excise on manufacture of 'active pharmaceutical ingredient' and irregular availment of CENVAT Credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Recovery of Duties of Central Excise:
The appeals by the assessee, M/s Wanbury Ltd, pertained to the recovery of central excise duties on the manufacture of 'active pharmaceutical ingredient'. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad, found that certain services procured by the assessee, such as art designing, consultancy, credit card services, and others, were not related to the manufacturing activity at Patalganga plant. The adjudicating authority relied on circulars by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and statements by individuals to conclude that the availment of credit was ineligible.

Irregular Availment of CENVAT Credit:
The proceedings revealed that the assessee had initially reversed credit on certain services like security and stock broker services. Subsequent scrutiny led to further reversals on services procured for the 'formulation division' and other 'cost centres'. The appellant claimed that a certain amount had been erroneously debited and sought restoration of credit. However, the adjudication authority found the claim unsupported by evidence and confirmed the amount as proposed in the show cause notice.

Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The appellant contended that the services procured were related to manufacturing activities and complied with rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. They argued that the date of registration as an 'input service distributor' was not relevant as long as the services were towards eligible manufacturing activities. The appellant cited various tribunal and high court decisions to support their claim that the assigning of credit was an internal arrangement within the rules.

Judgment and Remand:
The Tribunal found that the impugned order lacked a proper justification for disallowing the credit availed during the disputed period. The reliance on statements without factual evidence of ineligibility was deemed insufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a fresh determination based on the facts presented by the appellant and the relevant judicial decisions cited.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 09/01/2024)

---