2024 (11) TMI 548 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit recovery demands under Section 11D unsustainable when excise duty paid to government

Jyoti Cnc Automation Ltd Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot

Jyoti Cnc Automation Ltd Versus Commissioner of C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot - TMI Issues:- Interpretation of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding payment of excise duty on inputs- Applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the recovery of excess amount collected on inputs- Analysis of relevant case laws in determining the liability of the appellantDetailed Analysis:1. The case involved the appellant engaged in manufacturing CNC turning centra, vertical machining centre, and other machines under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute arose from the appellant availing Cenvat Credit on inputs and clearing certain inputs as such on payment of excise duty. The department contended that the appellant must pay an amount equal to the Cenvat credit availed on such inputs under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The demand for the differential amount was confirmed under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.2. The appellant argued that although they had paid an excess amount on the inputs compared to the actual Cenvat Credit, the excess amount collected was paid by debiting the Cenvat account. The appellant relied on various judgments, including Shivam Metals v. CCE, Jaipur and Thermax Ltd. v. Union of India, to support their position that recovery under Section 11D was not applicable in such cases.3. On the other hand, the revenue contended that as per Rule 3(5), the appellant was required to pay only the amount equal to the Cenvat Credit availed on the inputs removed as such, making the excess amount collected by the appellant recoverable under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.4. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 11D, which require any amount collected in excess of the duty assessed to be paid to the Central Government. The Tribunal referred to the case of Shivam Metals and the Circular dated 7th August, 2002, which clarified that if the duty collected had been deposited with the Government, Section 11D would not apply. Relying on the judgments and circular, the Tribunal held that the demand under Section 11D was not sustainable in the present case, as the appellant had paid the collected amount to the Central Government.5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant based on the settled legal principles established in the case laws and circular discussed, thereby concluding that the demand under Section 11D was not applicable in the given circumstances.