2025 (3) TMI 188 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT sets aside Rs. 1.04 crore CENVAT credit demand following Roquette precedent but upholds Rs. 1.75 lakh demand

M/s. Bostik India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner CGST, Customs & Central Excise, Bangalore – I Commissionerate

The CESTAT Bangalore allowed an appeal partly regarding CENVAT credit disputes. The Tribunal set aside a demand of Rs. 1,04,80,736 for input service ... CENVAT Credit - input invoices which were received more than 6 months before availing credit in the factory - Civil charges - Electrical License - Pest Control - Testing charges for Civil works - RCM-Repairs - contravention of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - cenvat credit on input service invoices issued prior to 01.09.2014 and credit availed in October 2014 - applicability of 6 months pursuant to issuance of Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 which has been brought into effect from 01.09.2014 for invoices issued prior to 01.09.2014 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE, Customs and Service Tax, Belgaum [2024 (1) TMI 1210 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], wherein it is held that 'appellants have correctly taken the cenvat credit on 18/09/2014 for the invoices issued prior to 01/09/2014.' The confirmation of demand of cenvat credit of Rs. 1,04,80,736/- on this count is unsustainable in law, accordingly, set aside. Since the appellant had submitted not to pursue the confirmation of cenvat credit of Rs. 1,75,320/- as they have already reversed a major portion of Rs. 1,11,999/- and the balance amount is negligible, the order confirming the demand on this count is upheld. However, the imposition of penalty for availing the said credit being interpretation of law cannot be sustained, accordingly set aside. Appeal is partly allowed. The appeal in this case was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of adhesive compounds, was alleged to have availed inadmissible cenvat credit on input invoices and input services. The key issues considered were whether the appellant could avail cenvat credit on input service invoices issued before 01.09.2014 and whether the cenvat credit on service tax paid on construction-related services was admissible.The appellant argued that the cenvat credit availed was within the permissible time limit as per Rule 4(7) of CCR, 2004, and the amendment to the rule was not applicable to invoices issued before 01.09.2014. The appellant cited various judgments, including Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. and Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., to support their contention.The Revenue contended that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on invoices issued between January 2013 and September 2014 in October 2014, making the credit for the period January 2013 to April 2014 inadmissible. The Revenue argued that proper documents establishing the nexus were not provided, leading to the disallowance of credit and imposition of penalties.The Tribunal analyzed the legal framework and precedents, including judgments such as Anil Products Ltd. and Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, to determine the applicability of Rule 4(7) of CCR, 2004. The Tribunal held that the issue was settled in favor of the appellant based on previous decisions and directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to verify the invoices in question.The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned orders and set them aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The confirmation of demand for cenvat credit on certain counts was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal. The imposition of penalties for availing the credit was set aside based on the appellant's bonafide interpretation of the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the issue of cenvat credit availed on input service invoices issued before 01.09.2014, based on established legal principles and precedents, while upholding the demand confirmation on other counts but setting aside penalties imposed.