M/S Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd vs Cce, Delhi Ii
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 1100 of 2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an assessee has reversed Cenvat credit in excess of the amount actually attributable to exempted or job-work goods, and the excess reversal is established from the assessee's own account books and statutory records, which are the documents the authorities are to verify, the assessee is entitled to refund or re-credit of the excess amount so reversed, and a refund claim for that excess is to be allowed notwithstanding the denial of refund on the ground that documentary evidence was not produced or that the prescribed procedure for availment of credit was not followed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 56/MA/GGN/2009-2010 dated 09/02/2010 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi III, Gurgaon.]
For Approval and signature :
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :
the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :
copy of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Department Authorities?
M/s Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. Appellant
Versus
CCE, Delhi II Respondent
Appearance
Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Pramod Kumar, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Final Order No. 52367/2015 Dated : 29/07/2015
Per. Ashok Jindal :-
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for denying refund claim of excess reversal of Cenvat credit.
2. The fact of the case are that appellant is a job worker of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. and doing the job work of painting of various motor parts. Apart from the job work, the appellant is doing the activity of painting of motor parts indendentally. As the appellant is not maintaining separate account of inputs for uses of paint in their activity for job work as well as own purposes, the appellant is reversing proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to job work assigned to them. On the basis of consumption of inputs, the appellant has arrived at a formula to quantify the inputs used for job work activity and as per the formula the appellant is required to reverse Cenvat credit @ 0.0179 per square inch. During the impugned period i.e. July 2006 to February 2009, the appellant reversed the Cenvat credit of inputs used in job work on the basis of wrong calculation as 0.179 square inch instead of 0.0179 square inch, therefore, the appellant reversed excess Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,98,08,628/-. On realization that appellant has reversed excess Cenvat credit, the appellant suo-moto took Cenvat credit on account of excess reversal and intimated to the Department. Department directed the appellant that you cannot take suo-moto credit but for excess reversal of Cenvat credit, you are required to file refund claim. Pursuant to that, the appellant filed a refund claim of the said excess reversal which was rejected on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce documentary evidence in support of the said claim. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us.
2. Heard the parties and perused the records.
3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that for job work goods, they followed the procedure under Rule 4 (5) (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and undertake the job work activity under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 02/04/1986, although the appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat credit on inputs attributable to job work goods but appellant is not contesting that issue. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that as per records they have intimated to the Department that the inputs attributable to surplus area for job work goods is 0.0179 square inch and it is a fact on record that they have reversed excess Cenvat credit by calculating the surface area as 0.179 square inch. In that circumstance, the appellant is entitled for refund of excess amount of Cenvat credit reversed by them. As they have filed refund claim, the same is to be allowed. He further submits that sole ground for rejection of refund claim is that they have not followed prescribed procedure as Rule 9 for availment of credit.
4. We find that it is a peculiar case where the appellant himself has reversed excess Cenvat credit which they want to take re-credit. For this excess reversal of Cenvat credit, only the account books/statutory records are the documents to be verified by the authorities below. This fact has not been disputed, therefore, we hold that appellant is entitled to take refund/re-credit of the excess amount Cenvat credit reversed by them.
5. In these circumstances the refund claim filed by the appellant are allowed which will regularize the suo-moto Cenvat credit taken by the appellant.
6. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
(B. Ravichandran)
Member (Technical)
PK
??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free