2019 (12) TMI 550 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on CENVAT credit issue, sets aside impugned order, providing relief.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case involving irregular CENVAT credit, demand for reversal of 6% on containers used for packing inputs, ... CENVAT Credit - allegation that the appellant has not paid service tax correctly and also did not reverse an amount of 6% of the value of exempted goods cleared - invoices issued beyond one year - HELD THAT:- The appellant has reversed the said credit before issuance of show-cause notice with penalty of 15%. Therefore there is no justification for imposing penalty and more over, the appellant had sufficient CENVAT credit in their account during the relevant period. Similarly the CENVAT credit on GTA was reversed by the appellant along with interest and also 15% penalty which is sufficient and therefore no penalty is required on this CENVAT credit which was reversed. Demand of reversal of 6% on containers used for packing inputs on which credit has been availed - HELD THAT:- Even if the amendment in Rule 6(1) w.e.f. 01/03/2015 wherein Explanation has been added to Rule 6(1), it is clear that Rule 6(1) would apply only when inputs or input services are used in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods - Further, it is an admitted fact that MS drums have not been manufactured by the appellant and therefore Rule 6(1) is not applicable even after the insertion of Explanation w.e.f. 01/03/2015. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Irregular CENVAT credit availed by the appellant.2. Demand for reversal of 6% on containers used for packing inputs.3. Allegation of irregular availment of CENVAT credit on GTA.Analysis:Issue 1: Irregular CENVAT credit availed by the appellantThe appellant was engaged in manufacturing and clearance of excisable goods and availing CENVAT credit. The audit revealed discrepancies, leading to a show-cause notice demanding payment for incorrect service tax and failure to reverse an amount for exempted goods cleared. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, disallowed credit, imposed penalties, and appropriated amounts. The appellant contested the order, arguing against the penalties imposed, citing compliance and lack of suppression. The appellant highlighted legal provisions and definitions to support their case, emphasizing the non-excisable nature of the goods in question. The appellant also challenged the imposition of penalties under Rule 15, questioning its applicability. The Tribunal, after considering submissions, found in favor of the appellant, noting the reversal of credits before the notice and adequacy of penalties already paid, thereby setting aside the impugned order.Issue 2: Demand for reversal of 6% on containers used for packing inputsThe demand for reversal of 6% on containers used for packing inputs was based on the appellant's alleged failure to comply with Rule 6(1) regarding exempted goods. The appellant argued against this demand, citing legal interpretations, non-manufacture of the drums in question, and precedents supporting their position. The Tribunal analyzed the legal provisions, including the Explanation added to Rule 6(1) in 2015, and concluded that Rule 6(1) applies only when inputs are used in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods. Since the drums were not manufactured by the appellant, Rule 6(1) was deemed inapplicable, aligning with CBEC circulars and judicial decisions. The Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable in law and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief.Issue 3: Allegation of irregular availment of CENVAT credit on GTAThe appellant addressed the allegation of irregular CENVAT credit on GTA by highlighting their actions of payment, interest, and penalties to rectify the situation. They argued against the imposition of penalties, emphasizing the lack of evidence of suppression by the Department. The Tribunal considered the appellant's compliance efforts, noting the reversal of credits, payment of interest and penalties, and absence of evidence supporting penalty imposition. The Tribunal found the penalties already paid to be sufficient, thereby ruling against the imposition of further penalties.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, providing relief to the appellant based on the detailed analysis and legal interpretations presented during the proceedings.