Case Law Details
Desmet Reagent Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Goods (CESTAT Delhi)
Appellant urges that there is no disability provided under Rule 3 of CCR that Cenvat Credit shall not be available, if the duty is paid in the case of import through utilization of DEPB scrips. Rather Rule 9 of CCR specifically provides that one of the documents for availing credit is the Bill of Entry. Evidently, the bill of entry reflects the amount of CVD and Cess paid on the imported raw materials. Accordingly, prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.
Having considered the rival contentions, CESTAT find that there is no disability in availing the credit, where CVD and Cess have been paid by utilizing DEPB scrips. Further, there is no dispute that the credit has been availed on the basis of bill of entry and certified copy of the same produced before the Range Authority.
CESTAT hold that the appellant have rightly availed the cenvat credit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefits.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
Heard the parties.
Excise Appeal No.51657/2022
2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant have rightly taken cenvat credit of CVD plus cess on the import of raw materials, where duty and cess have been paid by utilizing the DEPB scrips.
3. Audit objection was raised pursuant to Audit held in July-August, 2013 raising objection that with respect to 7 bills of entry as mentioned in para-2 of the show cause notice, that the credit has been taken against photocopies of the bill of entry. The appellant thereafter, as original bills were mis-placed, obtained certified copies from the Customs House and filed such certified copies before the Range Superintendent on 28.11.2013. Thereafter, after more than 30 months, show cause notice dated 30.06.2016 was issued, inter alia, further alleging that with respect to 5 bills of entry, where the payment of CVD and cess has been paid through DEPB scrips totaling Rs.25,43,135/-, should not be disallowed under Rule 14 of the CCR. Further, penalty was also proposed. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest and proposed demand was confirmed vide order-in-original dated 18.04.2017.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order-in-appeal dated 15.05.2018, rejected the appeal of the appellant herein. Revenue had also filed cross appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the credit should have been disallowed under Rule 14, but due to clerical error, the amount has been disallowed under Rule 15. The Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal of Revenue in favour of the Department vide order-in-appeal dated 17.04.2018 modifying the order-in-original to the effect that the amount is disallowed under Rule 14 and thus, upheld the order-in-original. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that there is no disability provided under Rule 3 of CCR that Cenvat Credit shall not be available, if the duty is paid in the case of import through utilization of DEPB scrips. Rather Rule 9 of CCR specifically provides that one of the documents for availing credit is the Bill of Entry. Evidently, the bill of entry reflects the amount of CVD and Cess paid on the imported raw materials. Accordingly, prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.
6. Authorised Representative for Revenue relies on the impugned order.
7. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that there is no disability in availing the credit, where CVD and Cess have been paid by utilizing DEPB scrips. Further, there is no dispute that the credit has been availed on the basis of bill of entry and certified copy of the same produced before the Range Authority.
8. In this view of the matter, I hold that the appellant have rightly availed the cenvat credit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefits.
Appeal No.E/51658 of 2022
9. This appeal also arises from the same order-in-original.
10. In this appeal, the appellant is in appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 15.05.2018 rejecting their appeal on the same issue. As the issue is already decided hereinabove in favour of the appellant, this appeal is treated as allowed in favour of the appellant/assesseee. Both the appeals stand allowed.
[Order dictated & pronounced in open court]
