Assessee's 6% CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 6(3) satisfies Notification 30/2004-CE requirements, demand quashed

Gujarat HC dismissed appeal regarding CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 6(3) of Credit Rules. Assessee adopted hybrid option by reversing 6% of exempted goods value, satisfying conditions under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. Tribunal correctly allowed assessee's appeal and quashed demand. HC found no substantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order, confirming that proper reversal of credit met notification requirements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the appellant's adoption of a hybrid option of post-clearance availment of Ineligible CENVAT credit on inputs and payment of an amount equal to 6% of the value of exempted goods under rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules leads to unjust enrichment, and whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE.

Issue 1: Hybrid Option of CENVAT Credit and Payment:
The appellant had adopted a hybrid method involving post-clearance availment of Ineligible CENVAT credit on inputs and payment of 6% of the value of exempted goods under rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules. The appellant cleared goods without duty payment, availed full CENVAT credit on inputs, reversed a portion of it, and retained the balance. The dispute arose regarding compliance with Notification No. 30/2004-CE conditions, leading to the demand of Excise Duty by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE:
The respondent-assessee was manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods using cenvated inputs and availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE. The appellant's compliance with Rule 6(3) by reversing the CENVAT credit was challenged by the appellant-Revenue, arguing that once the credit was availed, the condition of the notification was violated, rendering the assessee ineligible for exemption.

Judgment Summary:
The Tribunal, after considering Rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules and the appellant's reversal of CENVAT credit by 6% of the value of goods, found that the compliance with the condition of the notification was met. The Tribunal relied on the provision of Sub-rule (3D) of Rule 6, which deems payment under sub-rule (3) as non-availment of credit, thereby satisfying the notification's condition. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions supporting the appellant's position and set aside the demand for denying exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's compliance with Rule 6(3) and Sub-rule (3D) of the Credit Rules, which deemed the payment as non-availment of credit for exemption purposes. The appeal was allowed, dismissing the demand for denying the exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE.

---