Case Law Details
Berger Paints India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Introduction: The landmark case between Berger Paints India Ltd and the Commissioner of Central Excise, adjudicated by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata, is a seminal one in the field of excise law and tax credit availment in India. At the core of this case is the crucial question: Can Cenvat Credit be denied based on non-registration or delayed registration as an Input Service Distributor (ISD)? The Tribunal’s decision bears significant implications for businesses across industries.
Importance of Registration as ISD: According to the Commissioner of Central Excise, the credit availed by Berger Paints was denied on the grounds that their depots, spread across the country, were not registered as ISD or had distributed the credit prior to obtaining the registration. But, does this non-registration invalidate the claim for Cenvat Credit? According to the Tribunal, it doesn’t.
Substantial Benefit vs Procedural Infractions: Berger Paints argued that registration is not a pre-requisite for the availment of CENVAT credit, citing multiple previous rulings in support. They emphasized that mere procedural shortcomings should not deprive a company of substantial benefits, a view upheld by the Tribunal.
Judicial Precedents Support the Appellant: Berger Paints cited multiple cases in which courts have ruled that non-registration or delayed registration should not lead to the denial of Cenvat Credit if all other criteria are fulfilled. Notably, the Central Board of Excise and Customs itself issued a circular acknowledging this view.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
