Case Details: Huhtamaki PPL Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Silvasa (2025) 35 Centax 107 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S/Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (J) & RAJU, Member (T)
- S/Shri Prakash Shah & Mohit Raval, for the Appellant.
- Shri Ashok Thanvi, Superintendent (Authorised Representative), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, being a recipient of excisable goods, availed Cenvat credit of excise duty paid on Gravure Printing Cylinders received from a manufacturer-supplier and used in the manufacture of final products. The adjudicating authority denied such credit on the ground that the said cylinders were not liable to excise duty and that the manufacturer-supplier had wrongly paid excise duty, contending that Cenvat credit of duty which was not payable could not be availed under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant submitted that the manufacturer-supplier had paid excise duty on the goods and such payment had neither been questioned nor challenged nor disputed by the supplier or by the jurisdictional officer having authority over the supplier. It was contended that, in the absence of any dispute regarding the legality of the duty payment at the supplier’s end, the recipient could not be denied Cenvat credit merely on the ground that the duty was not required to be paid. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that there was no evidence on record to show that the payment of excise duty by the manufacturer-supplier had been questioned, challenged, or disputed by the jurisdictional officer having authority over the supplier. It was held that, in such circumstances, the payment of duty was required to be treated as legal and correct, and the recipient of the goods could not be denied Cenvat credit of the duty so paid. The Tribunal held that even where excise duty was not payable on a product for any reason, once the manufacturer-supplier had paid such duty and the payment had attained finality, no objection could be raised against the availment of credit by the recipient under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal accordingly held that Cenvat credit could not be denied merely on the ground that the supplier was not required to pay excise duty and allowed the appeal.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner v. CEGAT — 2006 (202) E.L.T. 753 (Mad.) — Relied on [Para 2, 10]
- Commissioner v. Creative Enterprises — 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.) — Relied on [Paras 2, 4, 10]
- Commissioner v. Creative Enterprises — 2009 (243) E.L.T. A120 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 2, 5]
- Commissioner v. Hylite Cables — 2007 (212) E.L.T. 284 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 2]
- Commissioner v. Kris Flexipacks Pvt. Ltd. — 2023 (7) TMI 943 — Relied on [Paras 2, 10]
- Commissioner v. MDS Switchgear Ltd. — 2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 2]
- Commissioner v. Nahar Granities Ltd. — 2014 (305) E.L.T. 9 (Guj.) — Relied on [Paras 2, 6, 10]
- Commissioner v. Nestle India Ltd. — 2012 (275) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.) — Relied on [Paras 2, 7, 10]
- Commissioner v. Ranbaxy Labs Ltd. — 2006 (203) E.L.T. 213 (P.& H.) — Relied on [Paras 2, 9, 10]
- Hanon Automotive Systems India v. Commissioner — 2022 (7) TMI 10-CESTAT-AHM — Referred [Para 2]
- Sunrise Containers Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2022 (11) TMI 792-CESTAT-AHM — Referred [Para 2]
