TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of Cenvat credit taken on SAD component to the tune of Rs. 4,77,073/- and 1,13,366/, while transferring input 'as such' from one unit of appellant's firm to its other unit, as mandated under Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, that received approval of Commissioner (Appeals) vide his above noted order, is assailed before this Tribunal. 2. Fact of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant is a manufacturer of panel and apparatus belt converter and accessories etc., who had been availing Cenvat credit on inputs including imported goods. Appellant cleared certain imported input 'as such' from one of its factory unit at Navi Mumbai to another unit during the period from 25.03.2016 to 31.01.2017 against 18 bills of entry and from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich no demand should have been made by invoking extended period since the said Special Audit was made after the normal period of limitation was over. Further, when the credit was available at the other unit, the entire case was of Revenue neutrality, which is covered by precedent decisions of this Tribunal passed in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs. C.C.E, Mumbai, 2019 (368) E.L.T. 105 and others. In citing further decisions of this Tribunal passed in other several cases including final orders passed in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. C.C.E Mumbai, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401, Bengal Steel Industries Vs. C.C.E, Kolkata 2005 (192) E.L.T. 343 viz-a-viz CBEC circular dated 10.03.2017, he also argued that suppression to evade payment of dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise, Pune Vs. Cardboard India Ltd, 2023 (4) CENTAX 257 (Tri- Mumbai), Star Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Raigad reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 656 (SC) and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Mumbai-IV reported in 2018 (362) E.L.T. 382 (Tri- Mumbai), such revenue neutrality cannot be justified for the reason that credit of duty paid would be available to some other unit or to its job-worker, for which order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) need not be interfered with. 5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish the above three judgments referred by learned Authorized Representative in stating that in all those cases extended periods were not invoke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1994, as barred by limitation and provision of Section 11A (4) cannot be invoked against them in the instant case in view of binding precedent developed though various judicial decisions that it was a revenue neutral situation without having any ill intention to evade payment of duty. As revealed from their letter dated 13.09.2019, marked as Exhibit E that has been annexed to appeal paper book at page no. 26, in respect of other two components namely payment of Service Tax on excess recovery of freight etc. they had discharged the Service Tax so as to avoid future litigation. This being so, it can only be said that though revenue neutrality plea has been taken in the said letter, as revealed from the argu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. Since the assesse is in appeal and if the exercise is Revenue neutral, then there was no need even to file the appeal. Be that as it may, if that is so, it is always open to the assesse to claim such a credit." In addition to the above observation, I would also be tempted to note here that the ratio of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal passed in the case Jay Yushin Ltd., cited supra also goes against the appellant since in clear and un-ambiguous term, it has been observed in the same decision that Revenue neutrality being a question of fact, the same is to be established in respect of facts of the case and not by merely showing the availability of an alternative scheme and that the credit should be available to the assesse i....