SSI exemption and CENVAT credit: credit restriction confined to specified inputs, with input service demand and penalty deleted.

Under SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE, the credit restriction in paragraph 2(iii) was construed as limited to inputs used in the manufacture of specified goods cleared for home consumption. On that reading, the restriction was not extended to input services or, on the facts stated, to inputs used for capital goods; credit relatable to inputs used in the specified goods was denied, while the demand on input service credit was set aside. Penalty was also held unwarranted because the dispute turned on interpretation of the exemption condition. The order was therefore modified to sustain duty with interest only to the limited extent stated, while deleting the input service credit demand and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods and on input services despite availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003; (ii) Whether penalty was imposable for the alleged infraction of the exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods and on input services despite availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.

Analysis: The exemption condition in paragraph 2(iii) restricted availment of credit only on inputs used in the manufacture of specified goods cleared for home consumption. On a plain reading, the restriction did not extend to input services or to the broader class of inputs used for capital goods, even though the department relied on the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the wording of Rule 11(2). At the same time, the notification-linked restriction was held to apply where the inputs were used in the manufacture of the specified goods, and the violation of the notification condition had the effect of denying the related credit.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on inputs was upheld, but the demand on input services was set aside. The issue was partly against the assessee and partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was imposable for the alleged infraction of the exemption notification.

Analysis: The dispute turned on interpretation of the exemption notification and the reach of the credit restriction. In such a case, the Tribunal found that the breach did not justify penal consequences.

Conclusion: Penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order was modified by sustaining the duty demand to the extent of input credit with interest, while deleting the demand relating to input service credit and the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification specifically bars credit only on inputs used in the manufacture of specified goods, the restriction cannot be enlarged by implication to cover input services, and penalty is not warranted when the dispute is one of interpretation.

---