2015 (12) TMI 732 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal rules in favor of appellant on duty payment, CENVAT Credit Rules compliance.

BPL Techno Vision Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I

The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that paying more duty at the time of clearance effectively reversed the entire credit, ... Reversal of SAD credit on removal of inputs as such - Whether in such a scenario, the law requires separate reversal of SAD or not - Held that:- Provision of law simplicitor requires an assessee to reverse the CENVAT credit so availed by him in case the receipted inputs are subsequently removed. In the present case admittedly the appellant has paid excise duty by adopting transaction value of the said inputs by debiting the CENVAT credit. The said fact is not in dispute and stands mentioned in the impugned order of the original adjudicating authority - appellant had paid more duty at the time of clearance of the inputs from their factory is not disputed by the Revenue. If that be so, I really fail to understand as to how the appellant is further required to reverse the SAD component. It stands explained to me that the appellant is maintaining only one register reflecting the credit of all the types of duties paid at the time of import. If the cumulative credit in respect of all the duties is to the extent of ₹ 100 and if an asseessee has paid ₹ 120/- at the time of clearance of such inputs, it can be safely concluded that the entire credit stands reversed by him. There cannot be any further requirement of reversal of SAD component separately. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Whether separate reversal of SAD credit is required when surplus inputs are soldRs.2. Merits of the demand raised against the appellant.3. Limitation period for initiating proceedings.4. Applicability of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing products under Chapters 85 and 94 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, imported various inputs for their final products. Surplus inputs were sold by the appellant, and duty of excise was paid on the transaction value of these inputs. The appellant contended that they had already paid more duty than the credit availed by them, thus no separate reversal of SAD credit was necessary. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, but the appellant argued that the entire credit was reversed by paying more duty, eliminating the need for further reversal of the SAD component. The appellate tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that paying more duty at the time of clearance effectively reversed the entire credit, including the SAD component.Issue 2:The demand raised against the appellant was contested on merits and limitation grounds. The appellant argued that they had paid more duty than the credit availed, thus no separate reversal of SAD credit was required. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the demand, but the appellate tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that the appellant had effectively reversed the entire credit by paying more duty at the time of clearance of surplus inputs.Issue 3:Regarding the limitation period for initiating proceedings, the appellant argued that all relevant facts were known to the Revenue and were part of their records, indicating no mala fide intent on their part. The tribunal did not find any justification for invoking a longer period of limitation, as the appellant's actions were transparent and known to the Revenue.Issue 4:The tribunal analyzed the applicability of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which requires reversal of credit availed when inputs are removed 'as such' from the factory. The tribunal concluded that the appellant had effectively reversed the credit by paying more duty at the time of clearance, aligning with the provisions of the Rules. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the appellant had fulfilled their obligations by paying more duty at the time of clearance of surplus inputs, thereby reversing the entire credit, including the SAD component. The tribunal emphasized compliance with the CENVAT Credit Rules and set aside the demand raised against the appellant.