Cenvat credit on stock inputs need not be reversed on SSI exemption switch-over; separate proprietor penalty was unwarranted.

On a switch over to SSI exemption, Cenvat credit on inputs lying in stock, and on inputs contained in finished goods lying in stock on the date of exemption, was held not required to be reversed, following the Larger Bench and earlier five-Member Bench view. The contrary Revenue position was noted, but dismissal of the SLP against that view was not treated as a declaration of law, so the assessee succeeded on the credit demand. Separate penalty on the proprietor was also held unwarranted once penalties had already been sustained against the firm, and the deletion of the proprietor's penalty was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit taken on inputs lying in stock on the date the unit switched over to SSI exemption was required to be reversed; (ii) whether a separate penalty could be imposed on the proprietor when penalty had already been upheld on the firm.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit taken on inputs lying in stock on the date the unit switched over to SSI exemption was required to be reversed.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its Larger Bench view and the earlier five-Member Bench view that, on a switch over to SSI exemption, credit on inputs lying in stock and inputs contained in finished goods lying in stock on the date of exemption is not required to be reversed. It noted the contrary view relied upon by the Revenue, but held that dismissal of the SLP against that view did not itself declare the law. It therefore accepted the assessee's position on the credit demand.

Conclusion: The credit taken on the inputs lying in stock was not required to be reversed, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether a separate penalty could be imposed on the proprietor when penalty had already been upheld on the firm.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that once penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q(1) had been sustained against the firm, a further separate penalty on the proprietor was unnecessary. Relying on the principle that separate penalty is not warranted in such circumstances, it affirmed the deletion of the proprietor's penalty.

Conclusion: The separate penalty on the proprietor was not called for and its deletion was .

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed in full, and the order in favour of the assessee was sustained on both the credit and penalty issues.

Ratio Decidendi: On switching over to SSI exemption, credit on inputs lying in stock on the date of exemption need not be reversed, and where penalty has already been imposed on the firm, a separate penalty on the proprietor is not warranted absent an independent basis.

---