2017 (11) TMI 278 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds respondent's CENVAT credit position on exempted and dutiable goods

CCE, Aurangabad Versus M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd

CCE, Aurangabad Versus M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd - TMI Issues:1. Availment of CENVAT credit for exempted and dutiable goods.2. Demand of 10% amount for exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.3. Appeal against Order-in-Original.4. Benefit under Finance Act, 2010 for reversal of proportionate credit.5. Revenue's appeal against extending benefit post-expiry of the Act.6. Submission regarding reversal of CENVAT credit before show-cause notice.7. Applicability of interest payment on reversed credit.8. Comparison with relevant legal judgments.9. Consideration of Revenue's appeal.10. Dismissal of Revenue's appeal and disposal of cross objection.Analysis:1. The respondent availed CENVAT credit for both exempted and dutiable goods, leading to a show-cause notice for demanding 10% of the price of exempted goods as per Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.2. The Order-in-Original confirmed the demand, imposed penalties under Section 11AC, and demanded interest, prompting the respondent to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on correctly availing the amnesty scheme under the Finance Act, 2010, which concluded proceedings upon proportionate credit reversal.4. The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner's decision, arguing that the benefit under Sections 71, 72, and 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 was time-limited until 7th November, 2010, thus not applicable in subsequent periods.5. The Revenue contended that the respondent could not avail the benefit post-expiry of the Act, challenging the extension of the benefit in the impugned order.6. The respondent argued that the CENVAT credit reversal was within the Finance Act, 2010 provisions, emphasizing that the credit was reversed before the show-cause notice and amendment by the Act.7. The respondent also highlighted the payment of interest at 24% and cited legal precedents like Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. and Dr. Writer's Food Products P. Ltd. to support their position.8. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, noting that the respondent was eligible for credit reversal even without the Act's amendment, as the reversal was done before the notice and interest was paid.9. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector, the Tribunal held that once credit was reversed with interest, it equated to non-availment, consistent with prior judgments like Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. and Dr. Writer's Food Products P. Ltd.10. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in the argument, and disposed of the cross objection, upholding the respondent's position.---