Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Super Smelters Ltd vs Bolpur Commissionerate on 24 September, 2025
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Excise Appeal No. 75739 of 2019
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 340-341/BOL-CE/18-19 dated 06.12.2018 passed
by the Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Siliguri Appeals Commissionerate,
Haren Mukherjee Road, Hakimpara, Siliguri - 734 001, Darjeeling, West Bengal)
M/s. Super Smelters (P) Limited [Unit-III] : Appellant
Jamuria Industrial Estate,
Ikra, Jamuria - 713 362, West Bengal
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax : Respondent
Bolpur Commissionerate,
Nanoor Chandidas Road, Sian,
Bolpur - 731 204, Birbum, West Bengal
WITH
Excise Appeal No. 75741 of 2019
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 340-341/BOL-CE/18-19 dated 06.12.2018 passed
by the Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Siliguri Appeals Commissionerate,
Haren Mukherjee Road, Hakimpara, Siliguri - 734 001, Darjeeling, West Bengal)
M/s. Super Smelters (P) Limited [Unit-III] : Appellant
Jamuria Industrial Estate,
Ikra, Jamuria - 713 362, West Bengal
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax : Respondent
Bolpur Commissionerate,
Nanoor Chandidas Road, Sian,
Bolpur - 731 204, Birbum, West Bengal
AND
Excise Appeal No. 77050 of 2019
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 124/Bol-CE/2019-20 dated 28.06.2019 passed by
the Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Central Excise, Siliguri Appeals Commissionerate,
Haren Mukherjee Road, Hakimpara, Siliguri - 734 001, Darjeeling, West Bengal)
M/s. Super Smelters (P) Limited [Unit-III] : Appellant
Jamuria Industrial Estate,
Ikra, Jamuria - 713 362, West Bengal
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax : Respondent
Bolpur Commissionerate,
Nanoor Chandidas Road, Sian,
Bolpur - 731 204, Birbum, West Bengal
Page 2 of 19
Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB
APPEARANCE:
Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate, for the Appellant
Shri S.K. Jha and Shri T. Sulaiman, both Auth. Representatives, for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NOs. 77460-77462 / 2025
DATE OF HEARING: 17.09.2025
DATE OF DECISION: 24.09.2025
ORDER:[PER SHRI R. MURALIDHAR] The appellants are manufacturers of Silico- Manganese, M.S. Billets and Sponge Iron, falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During verification of the records of the appellant for the Financial Year 2014- 15 by the CERA Audit, it was found that the said appellant had availed CENVAT credit on exempted goods i.e. 'Ferro Manganese Slag' received on payment of duty from M/s. Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. during the period 2014-15. The said consignment of 'Ferro Manganese Slag' (Ch. Heading 2619) had been received by the appellant on payment of Central Excise duty at full rate i.e., @ 12.36.
2. Periodical Show Cause Notices were issued on the ground that 'Ferro Manganese Slag' falling under TSH No. 26190090 arises as a by-product in the course of manufacture of Iron & Steel. Ferro Manganese Slag, classifiable under Chapter Heading 2619 of CETA, is fully exempted from duty of Excise vide Sl. No. 06 of the Notification No, 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 superseded by Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (Sl. No. 57 of General Page 3 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB Exemption No. 50), but M/s. Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. had charged duty from the appellant violating the provisions of Sub-Section (1A) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Sub-Section (1A) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, states that, where an exemption under Sub -Section (1) of Section 5A in respect of any excisable goods from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon has been granted absolutely, the manufacturer of such excisable goods shall not pay the duty of excise on such goods. The Board vide its Circular No. 870/8/200-8-CX, dated 16.05.2008 [(226) ELT (T3)], has clarified that CENVAT credit of the amount of 8% or 10% paid under the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be taken by the buyer since such payment is not a payment of duty in terms of Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. Further, Board vide Circular No. 940/1/2011-CX, dated 14.01.2011 had further clarified that in case an assessee pays any amount of as excise duty on such exempted goods, the same cannot be allowed as "CENVAT Credit" to the downstream units, as the amount paid by the assessee cannot be termed as "duty of excise" under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The amount so paid by the assessee on exempted goods and collected from the buyers by representing it as 'duty of excise" is required to be deposited with the Central Government in terms of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Moreover, the CENVAT Credit of such amount utilized by downstream units is also liable to be recovered in terms of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As the provision of Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with the Board's circulars as above debars a manufacturer from availing credit of the amount paid under the Page 4 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB provisions of rule 6 of the said Rules against the clearance of exempted goods, it appears that that the manufacturer of such exempted goods are tempted to pay the full duty of Central Excise on such exempted goods with an intent to make available the CENVAT Credit to their buyer manufacturer for illegal enrichment either by misclassifying such product or otherwise.
3. The appellants filed their detailed reply submitting that the vendor was raising proper Invoice under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and charging of excise duty was properly shown in the Invoices raised by them. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the appellant has received the goods, paid for the same to the vendor and taken the CENVAT Credit after accounting for the same in their records. However, the ajudicating authority confirmed the demands along with interest and penalty. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) followed suit and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed by the appellant.
4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant makes the following submissions : -
(i) He submits that the CENVAT Credit denied under the present proceedings are as under :
January 2011 to August 2015 - Rs.47,00,405 September 2015 to March 2016 - Rs. 75,755 April 2016 to October 2016 - Rs.14,47,733 November, 2016 to June, 2017 - Rs. 6,52,332 Page 5 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB
(ii) It is an undisputed fact that M/s Shyam Sel & Power Ltd., P.O -lkra, Jamuria, Distt.- Paschim Barddhaman, W.B. and others have paid excise duty on Ferro Manganese Slag. Copies of a few sample invoices have been enclosed by the appellant and marked as Annexure L.
(iii) M/s. Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. and other vendors have deposited the excise duty paid by them in the Government Exchequer under the Head of Excise Duty. If this amount deposited did not represent excise duty then action should have been taken by the Central Excise Range staff in charge of M/s. Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. and others to have this amount deposited under the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. But no such action was taken by the Department in depositing the amounts in terms of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Therefore, the excise duty paid by M/s Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. and others on Ferro Manganese Slag continued to be in the nature excise duty only.
(iv) The appellant relies on the following case laws, wherein it is held that when the goods are received along with proper Invoice showing details of the Excise Duty, the taking of cenvat cannot be questioned at the end of the receiver of the goods:
• Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2014 (301) E.L.T. 360 (Tri.-Mumbai)] • Neuland Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-I [2015 (317) E.L.T. 705 (Tri.- Bang.)] Page 6 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB • CCE, Chennai Vs. CEGAT, Chennai [2006 (202) E.L.T. 753 (Mad.)] • CCE & C Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. [2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.)]
(v) The Ld. Counsel submits that in these cases, it has been held that if the Excise Duty is paid by the vendor, when it is not to be paid, it is for the jurisdictional authorities at the end of the vendor, who should be taking action against him. The receiving unit's officials have no jurisdiction to question the Excise Duty paid by the Vendor. Once the same is paid under the proper heading of Excise Duty, the consequent CENVAT Credit cannot be denied. The Board Circular, is mere clarification applicable on the administering authorities and the same has no application nor is binding on the assessee particularly, when the issue is covered by the decisions of Tribunals, High Court and Supreme Court. The Circular cannot be issued with a view of override these decisions.
4.1. In view of the foregoing, the appellant prays that the appeals may be allowed on merits.
4.2. He further submits that the invocation of extended provisions in the first Show Cause is illegal; the first Show Cause Notice No. 43/JC/BOL/16, dated 27.01.2016 was issued for the period January 2011 to August 2015. He states that it is an admitted fact that the CENVAT credit taken by the appellant was duly shown in the RG 23 A Part I and Part II Register and the CENVAT availed was shown in the monthly Returns; therefore, the appellant cannot be fastened with the allegation of 'suppression with an intent to evade'. It is also submitted that the Revenue was Page 7 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB aware of the fact that the Vendors were paying the Excise Duty and were accepting their Invoices and Returns, without any question being asked. Therefore, it is also his prayer that since the appellant has taken the CENVAT Credit on the basis of proper Invoices issued under Rule 9 of CCR 2004 under the bona fide belief that the Excise Duty paid at the end of the vendor was not questioned, the confirmed demand for the extended period may be set aside on account of time-bar.
5. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that the. Board's Circular No. 940/1/2011-CX, dated 14-1-2011, specifically deals with the issue on hand; that this Circular clearly states that the Vendor should not pay the Excise Duty when the same is exempted and if he still pays, the receiver will not be eligible for the CENVAT Credit for the same. Therefore, he justifies the confirmed demand.
6. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal papers and the documents submitted before us.
7. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the fact the goods in question i.e., Ferro Manganese Slag, is an input for the appellant. It is not disputed that they have received the same along with proper Invoice from the Vendors. We have had a look at the sample invoices submitted by them. Some sample invoices are extracted below: -
Page 8 of 19Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB Page 9 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB Page 10 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB 7.1. From the above invoices, it is clear that the vendors have paid the Excise Duty and have given all the requisite details as are required under Rule 9 of the CCR 2004. There is no dispute about the goods being received at the end of the appellant and proper accounting of the same at his end.Page 11 of 19
Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB 7.2. We also do not find anything on record as to whether any action was taken at the end of the vendors on the ground that they have paid the Excise Duty, which was not required to be paid, but still even this cannot be the ground to deny the credit to the appellant, since the goods in question are 'inputs' in terms of Rule 2 (k) of the CCR 2004 and they have been received under Invoices issued in terms of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, all the conditions specified under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 get fulfilled. The Circular referred to by the Revenue to take up these proceedings has really no legal legs to stand on. First of all, this is a mere Circular having no statutory value. The conditions for allowing the credit have been specifically mentioned in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue cannot impose a new condition by way of Circular. If they desire to impose any condition, the same should be properly brought under statute by way of a Notification to incorporate the same in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Since this has not been done, we do not find any legal backing for this circular.
7.3. We also find that this issue is no more res integra and has been dealt with by several co-ordinate Benches. The Ahmedabad Bench, in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Vapi Vs. Kris Flexipacks Pvt. Ltd. [Excise Appeal Nos. 13692 and 13907 of 2014] vide Final Order No.11546- 11547 of 2023 dated 21.07.2023, has held as under: -
"The issue involved in the present case is that whether the respondent is entitled for Cenvat credit in respect of Excise Duty paid on capital goods namely 'Engraved Ms Copper Plated Rollers' in a case where as per the department, the said Capital Goods were exempted from payment of Central Excise Duty under Page 12 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB Notification No. 49/2006-CE dated 30.12.2006. The case of the department is that since the said Capital Goods were exempted from payment of Excise Duty under an unconditional Notification, the supplier was not supposed to pay the duty, whatever duty was paid cannot be treated as Excise Duty in terms of Section 3 of Central Excise Act,1944. Consequently, the respondent cannot take credit of any amount which is not a payment of duty in terms of Section 3, the department also placed reliance on the Circular No. 940/01/2011-CX dated 14.01.2011 though the Adjudicating Authority has denied the Cenvat Credit but Learned Commissioner (Appeal), in appeals filed by the respondent allowed the appeal therefore the present appeal filed by the revenue. ...
.....
4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the case can be decided on the first issue assuming the Capital Goods received by the appellant is exempted at the suppliers and we find there is no dispute on the fact that the supplier are registered with Central Excise, they have duly discharged the payment of Excise duty, they have issued invoices and filed their returns to their Jurisdiction Central Excise Officer. The Jurisdictional Central Excise officer of supplier has not whisper a word about alleged wrong assessment of duty. The department had jolly well accepted the Act of the supplier that is payment of Excise Duty. The self-assessment of payment of excise duty has attained finality as no objection was raised by the department against the supplier. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, if the assessment at the supplier's end has been accepted and no objection was raised, the same cannot be disputed at the recipient of goods for availment of Cenvat credit by the recipient. Since, the payment of duty has been assessed and the same was not challenged the duty was paid by the supplier is in terms of Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and this duty is clearly, legally available as Cenvat credit to the recipient.
4.1 Moreover, if the department is of the view that the supplier was not supposed to pay the duty in such case, the jurisdiction Officer at supplier end should have issued a Show Cause Notice for recovery of such amount under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944, which was not done by the department. This further reinforce the claim of the respondent about Page 13 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB their Cenvat credit. This issue has been considered time and again in various judgments:
(a) In the case of MDS switchgear Ltd, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following order:
"Revenue is aggrieved against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby and where under the Tribunal has reversed the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise holding that the process followed by the Revenue from the issue of show cause notice to the determination of the liability is not based on relevant law.
2. M/s. MDS Switchgear Ltd., D-4, MIDC, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') and M/s. MDS Switchgear Ltd., A-2, MIDC, Malegaon Village, Sinnar (hereinafter referred to as 'the supplier') are the sister concerns and are engaged in the manufacture of circuit-breakers falling under Chapter Heading No. 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing of Modvat facility under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Rules')
3. The assessee was receiving 'tripstar MCB's single pole' of various configurations from their unit at Sinnar in semi-finished condition. After carrying out certain operation, they have cleared the goods at lower value than the landing cost of semifinished received from their unit, viz., MDS Switchgear, Malegaon, Sinnar. The Revenue, after a detailed verification of record, came to the conclusion that the cost of semi-finished goods supplied by their sister concern is arrived at by adding the raw material cost, direct/indirect labour cost, average overheads, notional profit and Modvat element. Further, the cost so arrived is rounded off to the next higher figure, i.e., for item Code No. T161B06S, the cost of Rs. 56.68 has been rounded off to Rs. 60/- whereas the assessable value declared by the assessee is ranging between Rs. 45.20 to 52.47.
4. The Revenue issued a show cause notice dated 4-11-1999 to the assessee being of the opinion that they have deliberately entered into practice of raising value of semi-finished goods Page 14 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB by adding Modvat element and rounding off the value to higher figure so as to pass on the excess Modvat credit. The said notice was, thus, issued to show cause as to why Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 13,08,701/- should not be disallowed under Rule 57-I of the Rules read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to show cause as to why interest and penalty should not be levied and as to why plant, machinery, building etc. should not be confiscated.
5. By the order-in-original dated 30th October 2000, the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,08,701/- under Section 11A of the Act and imposed a penalty equivalent to the amount of duty under Section 11AC of the Act and also a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Act was also ordered.
6. Aggrieved by the above order-in-original, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been accepted by the impugned order. Revenue, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal.
7. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in fact there was no loss of revenue. It accepted the appeal by recording the following reasons :
"Reasons given by the appellants for the alleged inflation of the value of the intermediate goods are logical. What was required of the Commissioner was to examine the quantum of the loading of the assessable value by the Modvat credit on the earlier inputs. That exercise has nowhere been done. If the department was of the opinion that the value of the final product was depressed, then they could have charged the Jalgaon unit with under-invoicing of their product. That has also not been done. The valuation as given by the Sinnar unit was duly approved by the department and the payment of duty was also duly accepted. We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into 'deposit of duty'. There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rules entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the Page 15 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit *2000 (38) RLT 179+."
8. Counsel appearing for the Revenue could not assail any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. That being the position, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
.
.
.
4.2 The above judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported at Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-III vs. Creative Enterprises 2009 (243) E.L.T. A120 (S.C.). There are many more judgments passed on this issue, which is directly on the issue in hand. According to which, even though the payment of duty is disputed, unless and until, any action for challenging the assessment of the supplier is taken, Cenvat Credit at the recipient end cannot be disputed, on the ground that the supplier was not supposed to pay duty, may be for various reasons that either the goods is not amount to manufacture, or exempted etc. 4.3 In view of the above legal position, we are of the clear view that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the Cenvat credit on capital goods to the respondent. Hence, the order of the Learned Commissioner is absolutely legal and correct, which does not require any interference. Accordingly, the same is upheld."
7.4. An identical issue decided against the Revenue was challenged by them before the High Court. In the case of Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Daman Commissionerate, Vapi Vs Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd. [(2025) 28 Centax 427 (Bom.)], the Page 16 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB Hon'ble Bombay High Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue holding as under: -
"2. The Appellant-Revenue filed this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated 20 October 2023 passed by the Tribunal. Substantial Questions of Law "(i) Whether the CENVAT Credit taken by the Respondent on "Engraved Printing Cylinder" & "Copper Engraved Cylinder" which were unconditionally fully exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No.49/2006-C.E., dated 30.12.2006, will be treated as deposit in terms of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and duty so paid will not be treated as duty of excise for taking CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or otherwise?
3. The short issue involved in the present appeal, as per the Appellant-Revenue, is whether CENVAT Credit on "Engraved Printing Cylinder" & "Copper Engraved Cylinder" can be denied to the Respondent-Assessee on the ground that such Cylinder were not liable to pay the excise duty although the supplier from whom the Respondent- Assessee has purchased these goods has wrongly paid the duty, since these goods were exempted and no duty was required to be paid by the supplier. 4. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order has given a finding that there is no evidence on record that the payment of duty by the supplier was questioned / challenged / disputed by their jurisdictional officer and since the payment of duty by the supplier is found to be legal and correct, the Respondent- Assessee cannot be denied benefit of CENVAT credit. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Revenue has not challenged this finding of fact as incorrect. Therefore, on this very limited ground since these findings are not challenged and this being a finding of fact rendered by the final fact finding authority, in our view, no substantial questions of law can be said to arise from the impugned Tribunal's order. 5. Secondly, the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Nestle India Ltd. 2012 (275) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.) and its own decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Page 17 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB and Service Tax v. Kris Flexipacks Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (7) TMI 943. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kris Flexipacks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been challenged by the Appellant-Revenue before the higher forum. Therefore, even on this count, no substantial questions of law would arise since the order of the Tribunal in the case of Kris Flexipacks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been accepted. 6. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court, Madras High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of its order and same has not been shows to us has being incorrect or having challenged before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal based on these decisions have stated that it is settled by various High Courts and the Tribunal that even if excise duty is not payable on the product for any reason, but the Assessee has paid the excise duty and said payment is not challenged or questioned then no question can be raised as regards availment of the credit by the recipients of goods. The Tribunal has applied these judgments since the facts were identical and no perversity is shown to us by the Appellant Revenue in this approach of the Tribunal.
8. In our view, for the reason stated above and following decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, no substantial questions of law arise from the Tribunal's order dated 20 October 2023, and, therefore, the appeal of the Appellant-Revenue is dismissed."
7.5. The Hyderabad Bench in the case of Neuland Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Hyderabad-I [2015 (317) E.L.T. 705 (Tri.- Bang.), has held as under :
"7. Further, the Board's Circular No. 940/1/2011-CX, dated 14-1-2011 was also brought to my notice. In this Circular, it has been stated that where an assessee pays Excise duty on exempted goods, the amount recovered as Excise duty has to be deposited with the Central Government and Cenvat credit also needs to be recovered in terms of Rule 14 of the Page 18 of 19 Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, no doubt, provides for recovery of credit taken. The Board assumes that if an assessee takes credit of duty which was not required to be paid but paid, availment of credit would attract the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The conclusion is that the credit which was taken wrongly would arise when an assessee is required to determine whether the inputs/capital goods received by him are liable to duty or not and whether duty is payable or not. There is no rule which puts an obligation on the receiver of goods. When we take note of the fact that the assessee may receive inputs/capital goods/services classifiable under almost all the headings, it is difficult to imagine that legislature would require the assessee to determine whether duty is payable for all these items or not and then take credit. Even a jurisdictional Central Excise officer may not have all the items listed in the Schedule for assessment. In fact, assessment has been taken away even from the Central Excise officer. That being the case, the Board's Circular which has been issued without taking into consideration and considering the implications of the provisions and implications of the instructions on the assessees cannot be applied blindly to arrive at a conclusion against the assessee."
8. Therefore, we find that the issue is no more res integra, with Tribunals and High Court taking consistent view that the Excise Duty paid at the end of Vendor cannot be denied as CENVAT Credit at the end of the buyer. The Board's Circular No. 940/1/2011-CX, dated 14-1-2011, has been effectively rendered toothless by these decisions. To the factual matrix of the present case, the cited case laws are squarely applicable. Accordingly, applying the same, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the Appeals on merits.
Page 19 of 19Appeal No(s).: E/75739,75741,77050/2019-DB
9. We also find that the Revenue has not made out any specific instance of suppression on the part of the appellant. They have received the goods under proper invoice and have accounted for the same in their records and also filed the ER 1 Returns. No scrutiny was taken up to pose query about their taking of CENVAT Credit or the bona fides of the appellant in taking the CENVAT credit, when the same is received along with proper Invoice under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, we hold that the confirmed demand for the extended period is legally not sustainable. We set aside this portion of the confirmed demand on account of time-bar.
10. Thus the Appeals stand allowed. The appellants would be eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025) Sd/-
(R. MURALIDHAR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sd/-
(K. ANPAZHAKAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sdd