CENVAT credit reversal on removal of goods as such upheld; revenue neutrality and pre-amendment recovery pleas rejected.

Removal of bottles and crates as such after CENVAT credit had been taken was treated as attracting duty reversal, interest and penalty where the assessee could not show that the goods cleared were not the credit-availment goods and the clearances were made under private documents without proper excise invoices. The limitation objection based on revenue neutrality was rejected because the assessee had not followed the mandatory accounting, invoicing and return-filing requirements, which supported invocation of the extended period. Recovery was also held permissible before the later amendment, since wrongly taken or utilized credit remained recoverable under the existing rule and the amendment was treated as clarificatory.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether duty, interest and penalty were payable on removal of bottles and crates as such after CENVAT credit had been taken, (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation in view of revenue neutrality, and (iii) whether recovery was impermissible for want of an express recovery mechanism before the later amendment.

Issue (i): whether duty, interest and penalty were payable on removal of bottles and crates as such after CENVAT credit had been taken.

Analysis: The applicable scheme required payment when inputs or capital goods on which credit had been taken were removed as such from the factory, and such removal had to be under an invoice. The appellant failed to maintain or produce convincing records showing that the goods cleared were not the credit availed goods, and the evidence showed clearance under private documents without proper excise invoices. On that basis, the removal was treated as one attracting the credit reversal and duty consequence, together with interest and penalty.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation in view of revenue neutrality.

Analysis: Revenue neutrality was not accepted as a complete answer because the appellant had not followed the statutory procedure, had not accounted for the goods properly, had not issued the prescribed invoice, and had not disclosed the removal in the returns. The failure to comply with the mandatory accounting and clearance requirements supported invocation of the extended period and negatived the plea that suppression with intent could not arise merely because the recipient unit might have taken credit.

Conclusion: The limitation objection is rejected and the demand is sustained.

Issue (iii): whether recovery was impermissible for want of an express recovery mechanism before the later amendment.

Analysis: The absence of the later explanation did not defeat recovery, because the amount became recoverable under the existing scheme once the credit was wrongly utilized. Rule 14 was treated as sufficient to recover wrongly taken or utilized credit with interest, and the later amendment was viewed as clarificatory rather than creating the liability for the first time.

Conclusion: Recovery was legally permissible even before the amendment, and this contention fails.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to relief on merits or on limitation, and the demand, interest and penalty were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods cleared as such are not shown to be outside the credit chain and the assessee fails to account for them in accordance with the CENVAT scheme, duty, interest and penalty are recoverable, and a later clarificatory amendment does not extinguish recovery already available under the existing rule.

---