Cenvat credit reversal not required for inventory provisions under Rule 3(5B) without actual write-off (5B)

CESTAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the appellant regarding reversal of Cenvat credit on provisions for slow-moving/non-moving inventory. The Tribunal held that Rule 3(5B) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies only when asset/inventory value is written off fully or partially, not merely when provisions are made in books of accounts. Since the appellant only made provisions for partial write-down without actual write-off, Rule 3(5B) was inapplicable. Consequently, no demand for Cenvat credit reversal or penalty was sustainable. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

The case involves an appeal against an order confirming a demand for the reversal of Cenvat credit on provisions made for slow-moving/non-moving inventory of stores and spares. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing alloy steel products, made provisions in its books of account for writing down the value of such inventory based on Accounting Standard-2. The issue centered around whether the appellant was required to reverse the Cenvat credit under Rule 3(5B) of the Credit Rules, despite the inventory being usable and physically available for manufacturing purposes.The appellant argued that the provisions made were not equivalent to writing off the inventory and that the credit was not reversible under the rules. The Tribunal considered the appellant's case in a similar matter where it was held that Rule 3(5B) did not apply when the value of assets/inventory was written down but not fully written off. The Tribunal emphasized that the rule is invoked only when there is a complete or partial write-off of the asset or inventory value, which was not the case here. The Tribunal also referenced precedents to support its interpretation that provisions for slow-moving inventory are different from actual write-offs and that the rule should not be applied in such cases.Based on the findings in the appellant's own case and the interpretation of Rule 3(5B), the Tribunal concluded that the rule was not applicable to the appellant's situation. Therefore, the demand for the reversal of Cenvat credit was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.In summary, the Tribunal held that the provisions made for slow-moving/non-moving inventory did not amount to a write-off under Rule 3(5B) of the Credit Rules, and thus, no demand for the reversal of Cenvat credit was justified. The appeal was allowed, and no penalty was imposed on the appellant.

---