2017 (12) TMI 826 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant clarifying CENVAT Credit Rules

Ajax Fiori Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE (Appeals), Bangalore

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining separate accounts for inputs in exempted final products and ... CENVAT credit - demand of 10% / 5% of the value of exempted final products - Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - as per Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, separate accounts is required to be maintained only in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products and not in respect of input services used in the manufacture of exempted final products - Section 73 was amended whereby Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was amended and provides that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of amended provision of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 even if the appellant has not filed any application. The appellant is required to reverse proportionate cenvat credit in respect of input services used in the manufacture of exempted final products and for this purpose, I remand the case back to the original authority to verify whether the appellant has reversed the proportionate cenvat credit of input services attributable to exempted final products - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:- Reversal of CENVAT credit for exempted goods- Maintenance of separate accounts for input services- Applicability of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004- Benefit of amended provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010- Interpretation of legal position regarding CENVAT Credit RulesAnalysis:1. Reversal of CENVAT credit for exempted goods:The appeal challenged an order rejecting the appellant's claim against a demand notice issued for not reversing 10% of the value of exempted goods as per Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants had cleared dutiable products without payment of duty under a notification, leading to the demand. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, including interest and penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). The appellant contended that the impugned order did not appreciate the provisions of the act and was contrary to previous tribunal and high court decisions.2. Maintenance of separate accounts for input services:During the audit, it was observed that while separate accounts were maintained for inputs used in exempted goods, no such accounts were kept for input services. The appellant argued that Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 only mandates separate accounts for inputs in exempted final products, not for input services. This discrepancy led to the demand notice, which the appellant disputed, citing legal precedents supporting their position.3. Applicability of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:The Tribunal analyzed Rule 6(2) and concluded that it requires separate accounts only for inputs in the manufacture of exempted final products, not for input services. This interpretation was crucial in determining the appellant's liability to reverse CENVAT credit for exempted goods.4. Benefit of amended provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010:The appellant claimed entitlement to the benefit of the amended provision of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010, even without filing an application, as they pursued remedies before the Tribunal. Citing relevant legal cases, the appellant argued that offering to reverse CENVAT credit during appellate hearings should exempt them from paying 10% of the value of exempted goods.5. Interpretation of legal position regarding CENVAT Credit Rules:The Tribunal considered the amendments to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules during the relevant period of dispute and noted the department's lack of clarity on the legal position. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the impugned order demanding payment for exempted goods was not sustainable in law. The case was remanded to the original authority to verify the reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit for input services used in the manufacture of exempted final products. The decision emphasized adherence to natural justice principles in the subsequent order.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, highlighting the importance of maintaining separate accounts for inputs in exempted final products and providing clarity on the applicability of CENVAT Credit Rules and amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2010.