Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 67 - CESTAT MUMBAIReversal of Cenvat Credit - Job work - Availment of credit of duty paid on procurement of goods without being reversed on transfer to the contracted manufacturer under procedure prescribed in rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - finished goods not having been returned to supplier - availment of credit of tax paid on goods that were not received in premises of appellant - HELD THAT:- The CENVAT credit scheme rests upon availment of credit and its continued existence till utilization; there is, therefore, ‘threshold’ entitlement flowing from rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and ‘retention’ eligibility flowing from rule 4 and rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The threshold entitlement of credit of ₹ 2,67,44,448 is not in dispute and it is only its continued retention, after the goods were dispatched to contracted entities, which has been sought to be disallowed owing to the finished goods not having been returned to the appellant or, in the alternative, its actual deployment in the finished product having been demonstrated. In doing so, the adjudicating authority has discarded the permission accorded by jurisdictional office for clearance from the premises of the contracted entity and, that too, by disclaim of ‘job worker’ status. The availment of credit of ₹ 2,41,49,130 rests upon rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which is predicated upon discharge of duty liability and upon conformity with ‘inputs’ in rule 2 thereof. The denial has been grounded on non-receipt at premises of the appellant. In doing so, the adjudicating authority has not examined the implied extending of the premises of ‘manufacturer’ to that of ‘job-worker’ which is implicit in the excise duty liability revolving on ‘job-worker’ that becomes eligible credit in the account of the principal manufacturer upon bearing incidence of duty liability. That the impugned order has discarded claim of ‘job-worker’ status, and inadequately so, precluding consideration of this eligibility hinders us from deciding thereto warrants rectification. The dispute warrants fresh determination within the framework of the observations - the impugned order set aside - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh disposal.
|