2025-VIL-249-CESTAT-DEL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Cenvat credit, Transitional provisions - Respondent availed and utilized Cenvat credit on capital goods received after the introduction of the CGST Act, 2017 which should have been transitioned through the TRAN-1 Form instead of being taken in the ER-1 return - Respondent also took credit on capital goods received in the months of April, May and June 2017 in the closing balance of Cenvat credit in ER-1 for June 2017, which should have been transitioned through Table 7(b) of TRAN-1 - Whether the Cenvat credit availed by the respondent was legitimate and could be transitioned to ITC under the CGST Act - HELD - The entire disputed Cenvat credit was admissible to the respondent, as it was not the case of the revenue that the credit was not admissible - Apart from this allegation that it was entered in its excise returns of the respondent for June 2017 and was entered in Table 5 (a) of the TRAN-1 instead of Table 7(b), it is not the case of the department that the respondent was not entitled to Cenvat credit and convert it into input tax credit. The only issue was that the respondent had wrongly taken the credit in the ER-1 return instead of transitioning it through the TRAN-1 form. This was a mere procedural lapse on the part of the respondent and the entire credit could be transitioned to ITC under the CGST Act - The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to drop the proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities is upheld, as the respondent was eligible for the Cenvat credit - The Revenue appeal is dismissed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page