2018 (8) TMI 892 - HC - Central Excise

High Court upholds assessee's right to claim CENVAT credit under beneficial notification

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Versus M/s. Bell Ceramics Ltd., (Now Orient bell Ltd.,)

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Versus M/s. Bell Ceramics Ltd., (Now Orient bell Ltd.,) - 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 11 (Kar.) Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of CESTAT's decision and consideration of Department's objections.2. Applicability of the cited tribunal judgments regarding the entitlement of more beneficial Notification.3. Whether CESTAT was correct in concluding that Revenue intended to compel the assessee to avail Notification No.05/2006-CE.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of CESTAT's Decision and Consideration of Department's Objections:The Revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to avail CENVAT credit under Notification No.05/2006-CE due to condition No.7, which prohibited availing CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing ceramic tiles without electricity for firing kiln. The Revenue argued that despite the availability of another Notification No.02/2008-CE, which allowed the same rate of duty without such a condition, the assessee was not entitled to claim CENVAT credit. The adjudicating authority supported this view, stating that the assessee should have prospectively shifted to Notification No.02/2008-CE if they intended to avail CENVAT credit. The CESTAT, however, allowed the assessee's appeal, relying on its previous decisions in similar cases, including the assessee's own case and M/s. Savana Ceramics.2. Applicability of Cited Tribunal Judgments Regarding Entitlement of More Beneficial Notification:The CESTAT's decision was based on the precedent set in the assessee's own case and M/s. Savana Ceramics, where it was held that the Revenue could not compel the assessee to avail a less beneficial notification when a more advantageous one was available. The assessee argued that they claimed CENVAT credit only after the anomaly between the two notifications was removed by Notification No.11/2010, which omitted the contentious condition No.7 from Notification No.05/2006-CE. The Tribunal's reliance on these precedents was pivotal in allowing the assessee's appeal.3. Whether CESTAT was Correct in Concluding that Revenue Intended to Compel Assessee to Avail Notification No.05/2006-CE:The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's insistence on the assessee availing Notification No.05/2006-CE was incorrect, as the assessee was entitled to choose a more beneficial notification, i.e., Notification No.02/2008-CE, which did not have the condition against availing CENVAT credit. The High Court supported this view, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Share Medical Care vs. Union of India, which established that if two exemption notifications are applicable, the assessee can claim the benefit of the more beneficial one. The High Court found no malafide on the part of the assessee in claiming CENVAT credit after the anomaly was corrected by the Central Government.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court affirmed that the assessee was entitled to claim CENVAT credit under the more beneficial Notification No.02/2008-CE and that the Revenue's attempt to compel the assessee to avail Notification No.05/2006-CE was unjustified. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld.