2015 (4) TMI 1169 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs written off subsequently - whether the respondents are liable to reverse the credit availed in respect of inputs which stand subsequently written off? - period involved is April 1999 to December 2000 - Held that - the provisions of Rule 3(5)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules were introduced subsequently in the year 2008 and cannot be held to be retrospectively applicable - reliance placed in the case of BHEL v. CCE 2002 (2) TMI 1322 - CESTAT BANGALORE where it was held that when the inputs are available in the factory Cenvat credit cannot be demanded - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the respondents are liable to reverse the credit availed in respect of inputs subsequently written off.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, comprising Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, addressed the issue of liability to reverse credit availed for inputs written off during the period of April 1999 to December 2000. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal considered the applicability of the decision in the case of BHEL v. CCE [2002 (50) RLT 208 (Tri.)], which stated that when inputs are available in the factory, Cenvat credit cannot be demanded. The Revenue did not contest the applicability of this decision to the case at hand. The Tribunal noted several decisions holding that when cenvatable inputs are written off, Cenvat credit cannot be reversed. It was also highlighted that Rule 3(5)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, introduced in 2008, cannot be applied retrospectively to the period in question. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

This judgment clarifies that in cases where inputs are written off, the Cenvat credit cannot be demanded to be reversed. The Tribunal emphasized that the introduction of Rule 3(5)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in 2008 does not have retrospective applicability to periods before its enactment. By relying on established precedents and legal provisions, the Tribunal affirmed that the respondents were not obligated to reverse the credit availed for inputs that were subsequently written off during the specified period. The decision underscores the importance of considering relevant legal principles and timelines when determining the applicability of rules and regulations in tax matters.