Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1175 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of CENVAT Credit - inputs - alleged non-receipt of ‘inputs’ in excess of the tolerance margin of 0.4% at the facility of the appellant as evidenced by their own goods receipt note (GRN) - HELD THAT:- Availment of CENVAT credit of duties paid on inputs is enabled by rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The credit taken by the appellant is the duty of central excise paid by the supplier as recorded in the invoices and any difference in quantity, manifested in ‘goods receipt note (GRN)’ on actual weighment at place of receipt, does not alter the tax thus borne on the goods except when credit accrues to the supplier through appropriate debit notes raised by recipient. No such document is placed on record. There is no evidence of any of inputs having been returned to supplier or rerouted elsewhere. The lower authorities are, themselves, not certain that duties, to the extent of quantity not received, have been re-credited by the manufacturer as is evident from the finding referred to. It is only by adverse presumption that the liability under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been ordered for recovery. Furthermore, rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not offer any adjustment towards tolerance or allowance and, yet, the lower authorities have deigned to provide for some arbitrary margin; implicit in the sheer arbitrariness is the principle of spreading the entire invoice value, and corresponding duty discharged, over the quantity of the goods as actually delivered. Tolerance limits are prescribed according to the nature of the goods and for the purpose of computation wherever such quantity is critical. Insofar as CENVAT credit is concerned, the underlying foundation is discharge of identical amount of duty on ‘inputs’ procured for manufacture or for rendering of service on the part of supplier. Reliance can be placed in appellant own case M/S. SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR. [2019 (6) TMI 1672 - CESTAT MUMBAI]], where it was held that the decision of Tribunal in NEERA ENTERPRISES VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH. [1998 (5) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT VERSUS BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. [1997 (10) TMI 141 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] and host of others on similar lines preclude the recovery of duty in consequence of difference between quantity paid for and actual ascertainment on receipt. Considering the circumstances and, in particular, the appellate orders in their own cases of identical recovery for other periods, the liability confirmed by original authority, and upheld in the impugned order, is without authority of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|