2018 (2) TMI 1744 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal sets aside order requiring repayment of CENVAT credit. Precedent cited for consistency in legal interpretation.

M/s Inox Air Products Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam- GST

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It held that there was no requirement to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the ... Reversal of CENVAT Credit - benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed - denial of benefit on the ground that the benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed and exemption granted, appellant having availed CENVAT credit on common input services is required to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods - Held that:- Identical issue decided in appellant own case INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST VISAKHAPATNAM [2017 (9) TMI 500 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where reliance was placed in the case of DHARAMSI MORARJI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIGAD [2010 (3) TMI 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where the very same rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was invoked, where the Bench has held that the provisions of Rules are not attracted in case in hand where CT-3 certificate has been issued - reversal of CENVAT Credit not required - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved: Reversal of amount equivalent to 6% of the value of goods cleared under Notification No. 82/84 to M/s Hindustan Shipyard Limited claiming exemption on Chapter X procedure.Analysis:1. Issue of Reversal of Amount:The main issue in this case revolves around the requirement of reversing an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of goods cleared under Notification No. 82/84 to M/s Hindustan Shipyard Limited. The appellant claimed exemption based on the procedure required under Chapter X. The Revenue argued that since the appellant availed CENVAT credit on common input services without maintaining separate records, they should discharge the said amount. It was contended that the procedure under Notification No. 82/84 is an exemption, and failure to maintain separate records necessitates the reversal of the amount.2. Precedent and Interpretation:The judgment referred to previous decisions in the appellant's own case, where it was held that there is no requirement to reverse the amount on clearances made to Hindustan Shipyard Limited. The Tribunal found that the issue was no longer res integra, indicating that the matter had been conclusively settled. Citing these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to deviate from the established view. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the interpretation of the exemption under Notification No. 82/84 and the necessity of reversing the amount in question. By relying on past judgments and established principles, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing consistency in legal interpretation.