Tribunal rules on excise duty demand under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

PI INDUSTRIES Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-II

PI INDUSTRIES Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-II - TMI Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are regarding the demand of central excise duty under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the reversal of Cenvat Credit attributable to processing of a specific product, and the applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to the case.

Central Excise Duty Demand:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, had cleared exempted goods without payment of duty. Show cause notices were issued demanding central excise duty under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand for a specific period and imposed a penalty. The appellant challenged this decision in the appeal.

Reversal of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant submitted that they had reversed Cenvat Credit attributable to the processing of a specific product, as accepted by the Commissioner. However, the demand was confirmed only for a limited period, which the appellant argued was not in line with the law. They cited legal principles and judgments to support their claim that the reversal of Cenvat Credit for exempted goods should render the demand unsustainable.

Applicability of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules:
The Ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand for a period based on the appellant's availing of service tax credit on common input services without maintaining separate records. The Commissioner held that the period was not covered under a retrospective amendment to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted the insertion of sub-rule (7) under Rule 6, which allowed the appellant to claim benefits with retrospective effect. The Tribunal found that the demand for a specific period was not sustainable under the amended rule.

The Tribunal observed that the purpose of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is to ensure that Cenvat Credit is not availed for exempted goods or services. They emphasized that the demand should not exceed the Cenvat Credit attributed to inputs used in exempted goods. Considering past judgments, the Tribunal concluded that demanding 10% of the value of exempted goods was not justified. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the quantification of the reversal of Cenvat Credit attributed to exempted goods. The appeal was disposed of with a remand order for a fresh decision.