Back
GE T&D Ltd. Faces Reversal for Partial Write-Offs as CESTAT Rejects Appeal
The Chennai Bench of the has dismissed an appeal by electrical equipment manufacturer GE T&D Ltd., upholding a demand for amounting to ₹8.57 lakh, along with applicable interest and penalty. The decision clarifies that from , the creation of an for the of inputs triggers an immediate obligation to reverse the corresponding , and that the burden of proving subsequent use of those inputs rests squarely on the assessee.
The case turns on the interpretation of , and its amendment via . Technical Member M. Ajit Kumar, presiding over the single-member bench, rejected GE T&D’s arguments that the provisions were merely accounting entries and that the materials remained physically intact and usable.
Amendment Triggers Reversal Obligation
Prior to , Rule 3(5B) applied only to instances where raw material values were written off fully or a provision was made to write off fully. Partial write-offs or partial provisions did not require reversal of credit. The amendment inserted the word “partially” into the rule, extending the reversal obligation to any —full or partial—and to any provision created in the books for such a .
The Tribunal observed: “Prior to , Rule 3(5B) applied strictly to instances where raw material values were written off fully or where provision was made to write off fully in the books of account. was not legally required for partial write-offs or partial provisions made prior to . Rule 3(5B) was amended via Notification No. 3/2011-CE (N.T.) dated , inserting the word 'partially' into the provision. Hence from onwards, a manufacturer was legally required to reverse equivalent to the provision created, even for partial write-offs.”
The allows a manufacturer to re-avail the credit if the inputs for which the provision was created are later actually used in the manufacture of final products. However, the Tribunal stressed that this is conditional upon the manufacturer establishing such use through proper records.
Facts of the Case
During an audit of GE T&D’s books for the financial years and , the Department noticed that the company had created provisions for writing off raw materials based on factors such as age of inventory, consumption patterns, and excess stock. Provisions ranged from 30% to 90% for slow-moving or excess inventory. The company did not reverse the attributable to these materials. Later, under protest, it reversed credit of ₹69.38 lakh on the revised provision amount, but the Department found that the reversal was insufficient and demanded the balance.
The company argued that the provisions were accounting entries only and that the materials were never physically removed or rendered unusable. Whenever provisioned inventory was consumed, the corresponding provision was released. It contended that credit reversal was required only where inventory was actually obsolete.
The Department, however, noted that despite repeated requests—including a letter dated , and three reminders—the company failed to furnish item-wise stores or inventory records linking the release of provisions to the actual consumption of specific materials. The company itself admitted that it was not feasible to individually track the addition or release of provisions against specific materials.
on Assessee
The Tribunal found that GE T&D had not substantiated its claim of subsequent use. It held that the explicitly allows of credit only if the provisioned materials are subsequently used in manufacturing, and that the burden of proving such use lies with the assessee.
“The company had not followed this . From , it was first required to reverse the credit upon creating the . It could thereafter have re-availed the credit upon establishing the actual use of the materials,” the Tribunal noted.
The bench rejected the argument that no reversal was necessary because the materials remained physically available. Citing Supreme Court decisions on the principle that when a statute prescribes a particular manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner alone, the Tribunal concluded that the itself triggered the reversal obligation.
The company’s failure to produce an auditor’s certificate or detailed inventory records, coupled with its admission that individual tracking was not feasible, led the Tribunal to draw an . “The claim of subsequent consumption remained unsubstantiated in the absence of documents demonstrating which materials were used, when they were used and how the corresponding accounting provisions were released,” the order stated.
Limitation Defence Fails
GE T&D also argued that the demand was time-barred because the dispute involved an . The company contended that the of five years could not be invoked in the absence of fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement.
The Tribunal acknowledged the legal position that mere non-payment of duty, without positive acts of evasion, does not justify invoking the extended period. However, it found that the company had failed to respond adequately to the Department’s queries and had not voluntarily disclosed the non-reversal of credit.
The Tribunal observed: “Silence may be treated as deception when there is a duty on the part of the Appellant to provide information to the department enquiring into a matter pertaining to the appellant.” It added that a person cannot take advantage of their own wrong. The company’s non-cooperation and suppression of relevant facts justified the invocation of the , the bench held.
Conclusion
The CESTAT dismissed the appeal, sustaining the demand of ₹8,57,537 together with applicable interest and penalty. The decision reinforces the strict compliance required under Rule 3(5B) after the amendment. Manufacturers must immediately reverse upon creating any for of inputs—whether full or partial—and must maintain meticulous records if they later seek to re-avail the credit upon actual use. The ruling also serves as a reminder that failure to cooperate with departmental inquiries can lead to the being invoked, even in interpretational disputes.
For legal professionals, the case underscores the importance of documenting inventory movements and provisions, and of following the statutory scheme precisely. As the Tribunal noted, the proviso is a relief mechanism, but it is not a license to ignore the initial reversal requirement.
