Order Date – 03 March 2023

Parties: M/s. Pricol Ltd. (Plant III) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Pricol Ltd. (Plant III), is a registered manufacturer of Oil Pumps and its assemblies and they were availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and tax paid on input services and utilizing the same for payment of duty on their finished product clearances.
• Three show cause notices were issued to deny the credit availed by them on the ground that (i) The ISD invoices did not contain the requisite details as required, (ii) No input services covered in the said ISD invoices were received by the appellant unit and (iii) a portion of credit transferred back was subsequently redistributed by the ISD registrant to the appellant unit and such credit is not permissible to be transferred by the ISD to the appellant.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit?

Order –

• The Tribunal held that all the three issues raised in this appeal are no more res integra. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. 924/2012 dated 12.09.2012 have already decided that input service credit when distributed by the ISD, cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR, 2004, when it was possible for the department to verify all the input service invoices on the basis of which the credit has been accumulated by ISD.
• On the issue of retransfer of ISD credit to M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD was finalized by this Hon’ble Tribunal vide Final Order dated 29.01.2019 held that it is evident that M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I has only returned/reversed the exact quantum of Credit that was transferred to it in the first place by the M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD. Such return/reversal has not enlarged the quantum of Credit that has been availed nor has there been any financial injury caused to the exchequer. This is then only a revenue neutral situation.
• Hence the appeal is allowed.