Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Cenvat Credit Reversal for Non-Excisable Goods

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a tax appeal case involving the reversal of Cenvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing nonexcisable goods. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's view based on established legal principles, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law arose. The decision aligned with previous apex court rulings, emphasizing the maintenance of Cenvat credit even if final products become exempt from duty. The Court concluded that the appellant was liable to pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit on inputs when duty payment ceased, in accordance with the Cenvat Credit Rules.

---

---

Issues:
1. Reversal of Cenvat credit for inputs used in the manufacture of nonexcisable goods.
2. Reliance on a previous decision by the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Reversal of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant, a revenue entity, filed a Tax Appeal under Section-35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, questioning the reversal of Cenvat credit for inputs used in the manufacture of nonexcisable goods. The respondent, engaged in applying Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating on Reinforced Steel Bars, had availed Cenvat credit under Rule-3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The respondent stopped paying duty on FBE Coated Bars after a CEGAT order stated that such coating did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. The respondent cleared FBE Coated Bars without duty payment after 31.7.2003, having availed Cenvat credit on inputs used. A show cause notice was issued, leading to an Order-in-Original holding the respondent liable to pay an amount equivalent to Cenvat credit on inputs in stock when duty payment ceased. The Tribunal's order was challenged, citing Rule-3 and Rule-6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which govern Cenvat credit reversal for inputs used in exempted products.

Issue 2: Reliance on Tribunal Decision:
The appellant contested the Tribunal's reliance on a decision in the case of M/s. H.M.T. Vs. CCE Panchkula, 2008, arguing that the facts differed from the present case. The CESTAT held that the law on the disputed issue was settled by the Larger Bench decision in H.M.T. case, stating that Cenvat credit taken correctly for dutiable final products need not be reversed if the final product becomes exempted later. The appellant argued for credit reversal based on Rule-6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The respondent relied on various High Court decisions supporting the maintenance of Cenvat credit even if final products become exempt from duty, emphasizing the validity of credit taken and maintained in separate accounts.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The Court affirmed the correctness of the Tribunal's view, aligning with the legal position established by the Apex Court in previous cases. The appeal was dismissed based on the consistent application of legal principles regarding Cenvat credit reversal for inputs used in the manufacture of subsequently exempted goods.

---