2010 (5) TMI 740 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for compliance with amended rules, waives 10% demand.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further verification and compliance with the amended rules. The demand of 10% of the sale value ... Whether a demand of 10% of the sale value of exempted goods can be made on the ground that Furnace Oil was used as a fuel both for the manufacture of non-dutiable intermediate goods, namely, “Dead Burnt Magnesite” which was partly sold in the market and partly consumed in the manufacture of dutiable final products, namely, ‘refractory bricks’ and ‘ramming mass’? Held that: - the FA, 2010 has retrospectively amended Rule 6 of the CCR, whereby reversal/payment of proportionate credit attributable to inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods, either before or after the clearance of such goods is an option available to a manufacturer not maintaining separate records for receipt, consumption and use of common inputs, taking credit on common inputs used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted final products - The reversal of credit for the month of Mar. 2008 is, therefore, required to be verified on the basis of the formula provided under Rule 6(3A) - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Whether a demand of 10% of the sale value of exempted goods can be made due to the use of Furnace Oil as a common input.2. Verification of the reversal of credit for the month of Mar. '08 based on Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the issue of whether a demand of 10% of the sale value of exempted goods can be imposed when Furnace Oil is used as a common input for manufacturing both non-dutiable intermediate goods and dutiable final products. The Tribunal waived pre-deposit of duty confirmed under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, amounting to Rs. 52,63,061. The decision was based on the fact that Furnace Oil was utilized for both dutiable and exempted final products without separate accounts as required by Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted the amendment to Rule 6, providing an option for manufacturers not maintaining separate accounts to reverse credit attributable to exempted goods based on a specified formula.2. The judgment also refers to the retrospective operation of the amendment to Rule 6, as established in a previous Tribunal decision. Additionally, the Finance Act, 2010 retrospectively amended Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, allowing for the reversal/payment of proportionate credit related to inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify the reversal of credit for the month of Mar. '08 in accordance with the formula outlined in Rule 6(3A). The case was remitted for fresh orders after providing the assessees with a reasonable opportunity to present their defense.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further verification and compliance with the amended rules.