Whether it is mandatory to claim benefit of notification no. 44/2001-CE(NT) and follow the procedure prescribed?

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1608

Case:-M/s OLEOFINE ORGANICS (INDIA) PVT LTD, M/S FINE ORGANICS (INDIA) PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I

Citation:-2013-TIOL-896-CESTAT-MUM

Brief Facts:-The facts and issue involved in both the appeals are similar and hence being taken up by a common order. The facts of the case are the appellants are holder of Advance Licence/Advance Authorization. They are clearing their final products in the domestic market as well as export. Under the Advance License/Advance Authorization Scheme, the appellants either imports the raw material or procures it from local manufacturers under Advance Release Order (ARO) or Invalidation letter issued by DGFT, against the said License/Authorization. Appellants have procured certain raw material from M/s. VVF Ltd and M/s Godrej Industries Ltd. Sometimes these are procured in the normal course i.e. without any export related scheme. When the goods are procured locally under ARO or Invalidation Letter, it is deemed export for the supplier. When the appellants are procuring the goods under ARO or Invalidation letter issued by DGFT, supplier of the goods are entitled to clear the goods without payment of Excise duty, by following the procedure under Notification No. 44/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001 as amended from time to time. For availing the benefit of said Notification, procedure is prescribed wherein the appellants had to initiate the process and based upon the process, supplier can clear the goods without payment of duty. Thus the procedure is a combined one involving appellants and suppliers. However, appellants and suppliers decided not to follow the procedure prescribed under the said Notification and instead paid the duty in spite of appellant transferring ARO/Invalidation letter to suppliers. On receipt of the goods, appellants have taken the Cenvat Credit of the duty paid by the suppliers. Impugned order demands the Cenvat Credit so taken alongwith interest and penalty.

Appellant Contentions:-The Appellant submits that he did not want or was not in a position to follow the procedure prescribed under Notification NO. 44/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.6.2001 and, therefore, suppliers have not availed the benefit of duty free clearance. It was further contended that appellants cannot be compelled to follow the procedure and once they have not followed the procedure, they are not entitled to the benefit of NotificaitonNo.44//2001-CE(NT) dt 26.6.2001. The duty has been paid by the suppliers of the raw material/input and they have availed the credit of the same. It is by now well established that duty paid by supplier cannot be denied as credit to the receiver of the goods. It was also the contention of the ld. Consultant that no action has been taken on the suppliers of the raw material. If duty was not payable, action should have been taken against them. Also, ld. Consultant also relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Shakum Polymers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus. Daman, reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 250 (Tri Ahmd.) (2009-TIOL-2591-CESTAT-AHM ) on the same issue.

Respondent Contentions:-The Respondent submits that since the appellant along with suppliers were entitled to clear the goods duty free by following the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 44/2001- CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001, the duty paid by the supplier has to be considered as deposit with Government and the appellants are not entitled to avail the credit of the same.

The ld. AR further argued that Notification No.44/2001-CE(NT) dt. 26.6.2001 specifically covers the clearances against Advance License/Advance Authorization. There is no dispute that the appellants have surrendered their Advance License/Advance Authorization and obtained ARO/Invalidation letter, these documents have been given to the suppliers and have not been taken back or cancelled by the appellants. Therefore, the goods have been procured by them from the suppliers under the said ARO's /invalidation letter. Under these circumstances they were obliged to follow procedure prescribed under Notification NO. 44/2001-CE(NT) dt. 26.6.2001. Ld. AR further argued that appellants cannot follow the invalidation letter/ARO procedure partly (i.e. for Foreign Trade Policy purpose) and not follow the same for excise purpose. In view of this position no duty was payable by the supplier and they were not entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit. Ld. A.R further stated that supplies made by the suppliers are eligible for deemed credit benefit which involved refund of terminal excise duty. Further, suppliers have paid excise duty in order to shift the accumulated Cenvat Credit to the appellants.

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both parties and perused the record, we find that there is no dispute that appellants had taken invalidation letter/ARO. These documents were handed over to the suppliers who in turn would have taken the benefit available to them. These have not been cancelled or withdrawn by the appellants. However, it is also observed from the impugned order itself that the suppliers have not availed the refund of terminal excise duty. We also find from the documents submitted along with the appeal papers that the suppliers have in the relevant years paid very substantial duty from PLA and, therefore, the Revenue's contention regarding shifting of credit does not hold water. We have asked the Ld. AR to show any specific provisions under Central Excise law requiring the appellants to clear the goods in the said situation under Notification No. 44/2001-CE(NT) dt. 26.6.2001 only. We have also seen the Notification and the connected rules. These rules do not require the appellants to necessarily clear the goods duty free by following the procedure under Notification No. 44/2001-CE(NT) dt26.6.2001. We also note that overall there is no loss to the Revenue as the credit is being taken of the duty paid. If the appellants could have followed the Notification NO. 44./2002- CE(NT) dt 26.6.2001, no duty would have been paid by the suppliers and appellants would also have not got any credit. We also note that in the impugned order, Tribunal judgment in the case of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. reported in 2009 (244) ELT 254 (Tri.Ahd) = (2009-TIOL-530- CESTAT-AHM) have been cited with lot of force. We have gone through the said judgement and we find that the issue involved in the said judgment was different and are not relevant to the facts of the present case. In fact, in the case of M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., duty was being paid by the supplier and no objection was raised by the department. Objection raised was relating to valuation of supplies made. We also find the issue is exactly the same as directed by the Tribunal in the case of Shakun Polymers Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2009 (241) ELT 250 (Tri. Ahd.) (2009-TIOL-2591-CESTAT-AHM ). We do not find any reason not to follow the same.

In view of the above, we allow both the appeals.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:-The crux of this case is that the holder of ARO/Invalidation letter has the benefit of procuring duty free materials on following the prescribed procedure of the notification no.44/2001-CE(NT). But, alternatively, he can also claim the credit of inputs if the supplier of the materials has paid the duty on clearance of such materials and has not claimed the refund of terminal excise duty.

Comments

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1608

Post a Comment

Query