2019 (1) TMI 54 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside impugned Order on Excise Duty liability.

M/s. JPP Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of G.S.T. & Central Excise, Salem Commissionerate

The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order, ruling in favor of the appellant on both merits and limitation regarding the liability of Excise Duty under the ... CENVAT Credit - appellants have availed common input/input service Credit - provisions of Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 not exercised - Held that:- they had voluntarily reversed the proportionate input/input service Credit alongwith interest - The issue is no more res-intgra as has already been discussed by this Bench in the case of Castrol India Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 315 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where reliance placed in the case of DALMIA BHARAT SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LTD., DALMIA CHINI MILLS VERSUS C.C.E. CUS. & S. TAX, NEW DELHI [2017 (1) TMI 231 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the Commissioner is not justified in insisting that appellant reverse cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules - the appeal is allowed on merits as well as on limitation with consequential benefits - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Liability of Excise Duty under CENVAT Credit Rules.Analysis:The appellant contested the liability of Excise Duty amounting to &8377; 7,19,72,721 raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise Salem. The Show Cause Notice alleged contravention of Rule 6(1), 6(2), and 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant was accused of clearing final products both with and without payment of duty, availing common input/input service Credit, and not complying with Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004. The impugned Order confirmed the proposals, leading to the appeal by the assessee.During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred as the appellant had voluntarily reversed a portion of the credit much before the issuance of the notice. It was also contended that the demand raised was arbitrary and contrary to the law. The advocate relied on a previous Tribunal order to support the argument that non-compliance with Rule 6(3)/6(3A) is condonable.The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings. After hearing both sides and examining the arguments and documents, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that the Department cannot insist on reversing credit as per Rule 6(3)(i) and that the delay in procedural matters is condonable. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for verification of the credit reversal, despite procedural lapses. The Tribunal concluded that the demand could not be sustained and set it aside, ruling in favor of the appellant on merits and limitation.The Tribunal further noted that there was no evidence of willful suppression of facts by the appellant to evade duty payment. The demand raised invoking the extended period was deemed baseless, and the appeal succeeded on limitation as well. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside on both merits and limitation, allowing the appeals with any consequential reliefs as per law.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order, allowing the appeal on merits and limitation, and providing consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with the law.