CENVAT credit for input services used exclusively in manufacturing dutiable goods exempt from apportionment under Rule 6(3A)

CESTAT Allahabad held that CENVAT credit for input services used exclusively in manufacturing dutiable goods need not be included in total credit for apportionment between exempted services and dutiable goods. Only common input service credit requires apportionment. The tribunal relied on Rule 6(3A) amendment effective April 2016, clarified retrospectively by Board circular. Extended limitation period was rejected as no suppression occurred - appellant periodically informed department of credit reversal option selection. Since primary demand failed, penalty and interest were also set aside. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the CENVAT Credit availed on input services used exclusively in the manufacture of dutiable goods should be included in the numerator for apportioning the common credit between exempted services and dutiable goods.
2. Interpretation of the term "total Cenvat credit" in Rule 6(3A)(b)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for issuing the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
4. Imposition of penalty and recovery of interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of CENVAT Credit in Apportionment:

The core dispute revolves around whether the CENVAT Credit availed on input services used exclusively for manufacturing dutiable goods should be included in the numerator for apportioning the common credit between exempted services (trading) and dutiable goods. The Tribunal found that the CENVAT Credit related to input services used exclusively in the manufacture of dutiable goods is not required to be included in the "total CENVAT Credit" for apportionment purposes. This position aligns with the established legal principle that only the credit availed on input services used commonly in both exempted services and dutiable goods should be considered for apportionment. The Tribunal relied on several precedents, including E-CONNECT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD. and Reliance Industries Ltd., which clarified that the total Cenvat credit for the purpose of the formula under Rule 6(3A) is only the total Cenvat credit of common input services.

2. Interpretation of "Total Cenvat Credit":

The Tribunal addressed the Department's interpretation of "total Cenvat credit" under Rule 6(3A)(b)(ii), which included credit for services used exclusively in taxable services. The Tribunal clarified that such an interpretation is incorrect. The rule intends to include only common input services in the total Cenvat credit and not those used exclusively for manufacturing dutiable goods. This interpretation was supported by amendments and clarifications, including a Notification dated March 1, 2016, and a Tax Research Unit Circular, which confirmed that only common input services should be considered for computing the amount of reversal.

3. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:

The Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation is not applicable in this case. The demand for Rs. 6,19,010/- for the period from April 2010 to March 2013 was deemed barred by limitation, as the SCN was issued beyond the normal period of 18 months from the relevant date. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had filed the necessary returns and communicated their credit reversal method to the Department, negating any claim of suppression of facts.

4. Imposition of Penalty and Recovery of Interest:

Given that the demand for Cenvat Credit was found unsustainable, the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalties and recovery of interest was also unwarranted. The Appellant's regular submissions and transparency with the Department further supported this conclusion.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the Appellant's method of credit reversal was in accordance with Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, affirming that neither the demand nor the penalties and interest were justified.

---