CENVAT Credit on input services used exclusively for dutiable goods exempt from apportionment under Rule 6(3A)

CESTAT Allahabad held that CENVAT Credit on input services used exclusively for manufacturing dutiable goods need not be included in the numerator for apportioning common credit between exempted services and dutiable goods. The tribunal ruled that only credit on input services used commonly for both exempted services and dutiable goods requires apportionment consideration. The amendment to Rule 6(3A) via Notification 13/2016-CE clarified this position retrospectively. Since the demand for CENVAT Credit was unsustainable, associated 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 service (trading) and dutiable goods.
2. Interpretation of the term "total CENVAT Credit" under Rule 6(3A)(b)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Validity of demand for reversal of CENVAT Credit, interest, and penalty imposed by the lower authorities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of CENVAT Credit on Input Services for Dutiable Goods:

The core issue in this case was whether the CENVAT Credit availed on input services used exclusively for the manufacture of dutiable goods should be included in the numerator for apportioning the common credit between exempted services (trading) and dutiable goods. The Tribunal found that this issue is no longer res integra, as it has been consistently held that CENVAT Credit pertaining to input services exclusively used in dutiable goods is not required to be included in the "total CENVAT Credit" for apportionment. The Tribunal relied on several judicial precedents, including E-CONNECT SOLUTIONS (P) LTD. and Commissioner v. Reliance Industries Ltd., which clarified that for the purpose of apportionment, only the credit availed on input services used commonly in both exempted and dutiable services should be considered.

2. Interpretation of "Total CENVAT Credit":

The Tribunal addressed the Department's interpretation of the term "total CENVAT Credit" in the formula under Rule 6(3A)(b)(ii). The Department contended that it should include all input services, even those used exclusively in taxable services. However, the Tribunal clarified that the "total CENVAT Credit" for the purpose of the formula refers only to the credit of common input services, not those used exclusively for dutiable goods. This interpretation aligns with the objective of Rule 6, as amended by Notification No. 13/2016-CE (NT) and clarified by the Tax Research Unit Circular, which aimed to simplify and rationalize the reversal of credit without altering established principles.

3. Validity of Demand, Interest, and Penalty:

The Tribunal concluded that the modality adopted by the Appellant for reversing credit on a proportionate basis was in accordance with Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Consequently, the demand upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) was based on an incorrect understanding of the provision and was deemed erroneous and unsustainable. Since the demand for CENVAT Credit was not valid, the Tribunal also held that the imposition of penalty and recovery of interest were unwarranted. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed, granting consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the correct interpretation of "total CENVAT Credit" and upheld the Appellant's approach to credit reversal, setting aside the lower authorities' orders on demand, penalty, and interest.

---