2011 (2) TMI 44 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT clarifies credit denial for input services under Cenvat Credit Rules

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV Commissionerate, Hyderabad. Versus M/s. Hyderabad Chemicals Ltd.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed the denial of credit for input services and the demand of duty for common input services used in ... Cenvat Credit - input or input service used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods as well as in dutiable products, the reversal of proportionate credit in respect of input or input services which are used in or in relation to the exempted goods - Revenue filed appeal demanding duty equal to 10% of the price of exempted goods as credit in respect of common inputs services was availed by the manufacturer - matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority in view of the retrospective amendment in the rules - appeals are disposed of by way of remand. - Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 Issues:1. Denial of credit availed in respect of Service Tax paid for input services used in relation to both dutiable and exempted goods.2. Demand of duty equal to 10% of the price of exempted goods due to availing credit for common input services used in manufacturing.Analysis:Issue 1: Denial of Credit for Input Services:The case involved an appeal by both the assessee and the revenue against an impugned order confirming a demand of Rs.12,81,857/- along with interest and penalty. The denial of total credit availed for Service Tax paid on input services used in relation to the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods was the crux of the matter. The denial was based on the inability of the assessee to segregate the input services used for manufacturing dutiable and exempted goods. The Tribunal noted the retrospective amendment of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2010. This amendment clarified the procedure for reversal of proportionate credit in cases where input or input services are used in relation to both exempted and dutiable goods. Due to this retrospective amendment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration and a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a hearing to the appellant.Issue 2: Demand of Duty for Common Input Services:The revenue filed an appeal against the impugned order demanding duty equal to 10% of the price of exempted goods, citing that credit for common input services used by the manufacturer was availed. The Adjudicating Authority had ordered the reversal of credit for input services used in manufacturing both exempted and dutiable goods. The Tribunal highlighted the retrospective amendment of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which clarified the procedure for reversing proportionate credit in such cases. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision in light of the retrospective rule amendment and after granting an opportunity for a hearing to the parties involved. The appeals were disposed of by way of remand for further consideration.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed the denial of credit for input services and the demand of duty for common input services used in manufacturing, emphasizing the impact of the retrospective amendment of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the case.