2015 (5) TMI 97 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit - Revenue put an allegation that suppliers had included the freight and insurance charges upto the point of delivery and passed on higher duty amount. - Held that - As the issue is identical and the input suppliers are also same, the ratio of the above Hon'ble High Court order is applicable to the facts of the present case. By respectfully following the ratio of the decisions rendered in Hon ble Tribunal s decision (2008 (12) TMI 595 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and Hon ble High Court order (2010 (7) TMI 227 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT), the appellants correctly availed the credit and the demand on reversal of credit is not sustainable. Consequently, the imposition of equal penalty on the main appellant and imposition of penalty on M/s.Guwahati Carbon Ltd. and M/s. Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd. under Rule 13 of CCR does not survive and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit availed on inputs due to inclusion of freight and insurance charges in invoices.
2. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority to impose penalties on input suppliers.
3. Compliance with substantive conditions for availing cenvat credit.
4. Applicability of previous tribunal and high court decisions on similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved a common issue of denial of cenvat credit on inputs due to inclusion of freight and insurance charges in invoices by suppliers. The adjudicating authority had confirmed a demand for excess credit availed by the manufacturer based on inflated values in the invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, relying on previous tribunal judgments. The appellants argued that they had complied with all conditions for availing cenvat credit and that subsequent reassessment by suppliers should not affect their credit eligibility. They cited similar cases where the Tribunal had allowed appeals, emphasizing that duty paid nature was not in dispute.

2. The issue of jurisdiction arose regarding the imposition of penalties on the input suppliers. The appellants contended that penalties on suppliers were unjust as they had fulfilled their obligations, and the adjudication was done ex parte without following natural justice principles. Legal precedents, such as judgments in CCE Kolkata Vs ITC Ltd. and CCE Chandigarh Vs Punjab Tractors Ltd., were cited to support the argument against penalties on suppliers.

3. The compliance with substantive conditions for availing cenvat credit, as per Rule 3, 4 & 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellants maintained that they had met all requirements, including payment to suppliers, filing returns, and utilizing inputs in manufacturing. They argued that the jurisdictional authority could not dispute credits validly availed based on duty paid documents, emphasizing the duty paid nature and non-dispute on input utilization.

4. The applicability of previous tribunal and high court decisions on similar cases was pivotal in resolving the dispute. The Tribunal referred to cases involving the same suppliers and upheld the decisions that favored the appellants. Notably, the Tribunal and High Court decisions in Hindalco Industries Ltd. and DCM Engineering Products cases supported the appellants' position, emphasizing that the entitlement of credit could not be denied based on subsequent reassessments by suppliers. The judgments highlighted the importance of duty paid amounts and upheld the appellants' right to credit based on valid documentation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and penalties imposed on the appellants and input suppliers. The decision was based on the correct availing of credit by the appellants, supported by legal precedents and the consistent application of relevant laws and regulations.