2004 (5) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption from Credit Reversal on Duty-Paid Inputs under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E.

The Tribunal, relying on the Larger Bench decision in Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators, exempted the appellants from reversing MODVAT/CENVAT credit on ... Cenvat/Modvat Issues:1. Liability to reverse MODVAT/CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. dated 1-3-2000.2. Applicability of Tribunal's Larger Bench decisions in Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators and Raghuvar (India) Ltd.3. Time-bar issue regarding the demand raised.Analysis:Issue 1:The case involved determining whether the appellants were liable to reverse MODVAT/CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. dated 1-3-2000. The original authority held the assessee liable to reverse the credit and pay interest under Rule 57AH, based on a Tribunal's Larger Bench decision and a CBEC Circular. The first appellate authority upheld the decision partially, leading to appeals against the demand and penalty. The Tribunal examined the utilization of credit on inputs and finished products cleared at 'Nil' rate of duty post-exemption. The decision relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench ruling in Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators, exempting the assessee from reversing the credit, ultimately setting aside the demand.Issue 2:The conflicting views within the Tribunal centered around the applicability of prior decisions. One Member (J) supported the assessee's appeal, citing the Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators case and rejecting the reversal of credit. In contrast, another Member (T) disagreed, relying on the Raghuvar (India) Ltd. case, which held that credit on inputs in stock must be reversed upon final product exemption. The Majority Order aligned with the latter view, emphasizing the reversal of credit on inputs when final products are exempted from duty, ultimately rejecting the appeal.Issue 3:A key aspect was the time-bar issue regarding the demand raised, with arguments on the calculation of the limitation period. The consultant argued for a different starting date for the limitation period, while the DR contended that the demand fell within the time limit under Rule 57AH. However, the Tribunal's decision focused on the substantive issue of credit reversal rather than delving into the time-bar issue, as the reversal of credit was not warranted based on the Larger Bench decisions.This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal intricacies involved in the judgment, focusing on the interpretation of relevant precedents, the application of statutory provisions, and the resolution of conflicting views within the Tribunal.