Assessee's appeal allowed for verification; Revenue's appeal dismissed. CENVAT credit and input service eligibility to be verified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by remanding the issues for verification and decision by the original authority. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as the entire matter was remanded. The disputes concerning CENVAT credit reversal for steam cleared and eligibility of credit on input services for soya protein production required factual verification and hence warranted remand for further assessment.

---

---

Issues:
- Dispute over CENVAT credit reversal for steam cleared to outside factory
- Eligibility of CENVAT credit on input services from M/s ICT Mumbai for soya protein production

Analysis:

1. CENVAT Credit Reversal for Steam Cleared:
The appellant, engaged in chemical manufacturing, faced a dispute regarding the reversal of CENVAT credit for steam cleared to an outside factory exempted from excise duty. The Revenue contended that CENVAT credit needed to be reversed at a rate of 6% of the value of the steam cleared. However, the First Appellate Authority reduced the demand and remanded the matter for quantification. The key issue was whether the appellant had to reverse CENVAT credit under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The appellant argued that since the steam was cleared to a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), the demand under Rule 6(6) did not apply. The Tribunal found a factual dispute regarding the clearance of steam and remanded the matter for verification by the adjudicating authority.

2. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Input Services for Soya Protein Production:
Another issue revolved around the eligibility of CENVAT credit on input services availed from M/s ICT Mumbai for trial production of soya protein. The First Appellate Authority held that services used in setting up a plant were not eligible for credit post an amendment in 2011. The appellant contested this finding, providing evidence of manufacturing and clearing soya protein products on payment of excise duty. The Tribunal emphasized the need to verify whether the entire production was cleared with excise duty payment. As the invoices provided were of a later date than the services availed, correlation verification was deemed necessary. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original authority for further examination.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by remanding the issues for verification and decision by the original authority. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as the entire matter was remanded. The disputes concerning CENVAT credit reversal for steam cleared and eligibility of credit on input services for soya protein production required factual verification and hence warranted remand for further assessment.

---