2020 (6) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Penalty Upheld for Violating CCR Rule 6

M/s Prosafe International Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Goods and Service Tax, Alwar

The Tribunal upheld the order, finding the appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods while availing cenvat credit ... CENVAT Credit - common input services for dutiable as well as exempt goods - Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority has clearly recorded, that it is not a case of reversal of entire cenvat credit availed by them, irrespective of the fact whether it pertains to input services used in exempted goods or dutiable goods. Their claim that credit of only ₹ 80,006/- pertained to exempted goods is not substantiate by any evidence. The language of Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004 is not to grant credit to an assesse except in circumstances mentioned in sub-rule(2) & (3) thereof. In absence of any evidence about separate records to be maintained by appellant during the period of dispute it is absolutely clear that the appellant was not maintaining the separate accounts of inputs/input services despite manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted goods, however, were availing the cenvat credit on the common inputs, which definitely amounts violation of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Violation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding availing and utilization of cenvat credit on input services for both dutiable and exempted goods.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Violation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004The appellant, engaged in manufacturing safety shoes, hand gloves, and work wears, was accused of contravening Rule 6 by availing cenvat credit on service tax paid for input services used in both dutiable and exempted goods. The Department proposed a recovery of Rs. 1,96,31,255 based on a Show Cause Notice. The appellant argued they maintained separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods, citing a verification report by the Department. However, the Department contended that common inputs were used for both types of goods, as noted in the order under challenge.Issue 1.1: Maintenance of Separate AccountsThe Department initiated proceedings due to the lack of separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods, as required by Rule 6. The appellant's reliance on a verification report acknowledging separate accounts for a subsequent period was deemed insufficient for the impugned period. The order highlighted that the appellant failed to provide evidence of maintaining separate records as mandated by Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004.Issue 1.2: Reversal of Credit and ComplianceThe order noted that the appellant voluntarily reversed a portion of the credit related to non-dutiable goods, further reinforcing the lack of compliance with Rule 6. The matter was remanded previously to verify the reversal of the entire amount, indicating a voluntary action by the appellant.Issue 1.3: Compliance with Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004The order emphasized that Rule 6(1) does not permit granting credit to an assessee unless specific circumstances under sub-rules (2) and (3) are met. The appellant's claim that only a specific amount pertained to exempted goods lacked substantiation, leading to a conclusion of non-compliance.Issue 1.4: Upholding the OrderUltimately, the Tribunal upheld the order, stating that the appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts for inputs/input services while availing cenvat credit on common inputs constituted a violation of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. The penalty imposed on the appellant was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the appellant's non-compliance with Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, regarding the availing and utilization of cenvat credit on input services for both dutiable and exempted goods. The lack of separate accounts and failure to meet the requirements of the rule led to the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the penalty imposed.