2025 (4) TMI 565 - AT - Central Excise

Silver articles correctly classified as jewellery under CETH 7113, excise duty demands set aside

Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Cochin.

Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Cochin. - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Tribunal considered several key issues in this appeal:i. Whether the articles of silver jewellery/articles of silver manufactured by the appellant fall under Central Excise Tariff Heading (CETH) 7113 or 7114.ii. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012, as amended, for silver jewellery.iii. Whether the demand for excise duty on exported goods is sustainable.iv. Whether hedging amounts to trading of goods.v. Whether the appellant has availed ineligible credit concerning the renting of motor vehicles and repair and maintenance of motor vehicles.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISClassification of Silver Articles (CETH 7113 vs. 7114)The relevant legal framework involves the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudication authority classified the goods under CETH 7114, which covers articles of goldsmiths' or silversmiths' wares, whereas the appellant argued for classification under CETH 7113, which pertains to articles of jewellery.The Tribunal found that the adjudication authority's classification was based on incorrect findings, as the appellant provided documentation, including invoices, that indicated the goods were not studded with precious stones. The Tribunal concluded that the goods fall under CETH 7113, as there was no admissible evidence to prove otherwise.Exemption under Notification No. 12/2012The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 12/2012, which provides a 'nil' rate of duty for articles of silver jewellery not studded with precious stones, subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal found that the appellant complied with these conditions by not availing Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods used in manufacturing, thus entitling them to the exemption.Demand for Excise Duty on Exported GoodsThe appellant argued that the demand for excise duty on exported goods was unsustainable as they had followed all provisions under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal noted contradictions in the adjudication authority's findings and accepted the appellant's documentation and bank realization certificates as evidence of export. The Tribunal concluded that the demand for duty on exports was unsustainable.Hedging as Trading of GoodsThe adjudication authority considered hedging as trading, leading to a demand under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal, however, found that hedging is a risk management strategy and not trading, as it does not involve the sale of goods. The Tribunal determined that the demand based on hedging activities was unsustainable.Ineligible Credit for Renting of Motor VehiclesThe Tribunal found that the demand concerning ineligible credit for renting motor vehicles had been addressed and dropped in separate proceedings. Therefore, this demand was deemed unsustainable.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal made significant holdings on each issue:- On classification, the Tribunal held that the goods are classifiable under CETH 7113, as there was no evidence to support classification under CETH 7114.- Regarding exemption, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012, as they complied with the conditions for exemption.- On the demand for excise duty on exports, the Tribunal held that the demand was unsustainable due to sufficient evidence of export provided by the appellant.- Concerning hedging, the Tribunal held that it does not constitute trading, and the related demand was unsustainable.- On ineligible credit for renting motor vehicles, the Tribunal upheld the previous decision to drop the demand.Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.