2025 (11) TMI 130 - AT - Service Tax

Variable 'P' in Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 applies only to common credit for exempted and non-exempted goods

M/s. Sify Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai

CESTAT CHENNAI - AT held that the variable 'P' in Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 denotes only common credit attributable to inputs/input ... Manner of reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods/services - the variable 'P' in Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would denote total credit or common credit - HELD THAT:- The Respondent, in the impugned order, relies on an order of this Tribunal in Thyssenkrupp Industries (I) P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune [2014 (10) TMI 476 - CESTAT MUMBAI] which seems to lay down a contrary proposition. It is opined that this order does not come in the way in reaching conclusions considering that Reliance and E-Connect are cases where this Tribunal has considered the effect of the amendments. Thyssenkrupp, having been decided before the amendment, did not have the benefit of the text of the amendment itself to interpret its effect on the law before it. This, combined with the view on this precise point expressed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, compels to find in favour of the Appellant. The present case is squarely covered by the decisions in Reliance Industries [2019 (3) TMI 784 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and. E-Connect Solutions [2020 (11) TMI 282 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. The judgement of the Hon'ble High Court seems to lay down the same law. Respectfully following this precedent, we hold that the variable 'P' for the tax periods under consideration would denote only common credit which arises from inputs/ input services used both for exempted and nonexempted goods/services. The impugned order is held to be bad in law. The appeals are allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether, for tax periods prior to 01.04.2016, the variable 'P' in Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 denotes total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the financial year or denotes only the common CENVAT credit attributable to inputs/input services used both for exempted and non-exempted outputs. 2. Whether the amended text of Rule 6(3A) (effective 01.04.2016) is clarificatory and supports a retrospective interpretation that 'P' has always meant common credit, thereby making pre-amendment computation consistent with the post-amendment regime. 3. Whether, in light of the conclusion on issue (1), consequential issues relating to interest under Rule 14 and penalty under Rule 15(1) require separate adjudication. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Meaning of 'P' in pre-amendment Rule 6(3A) - total credit versus common credit Legal framework: Rule 6(1)-(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 governs reversal of credit attributable to exempted goods/services. Rule 6(3A)(iii) (pre-amendment) defined the amount attributable to input services as (M/N) × P, where M = total value of exempted outputs, N = total value of all outputs, and P = total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the financial year. Precedent treatment: A Co-ordinate Bench (Reliance Industries) interpreted the pre-amendment text to read 'P' as the total CENVAT credit of common input services only, not including credit on inputs/input services exclusively used for dutiable goods, holding that a literal acceptance of revenue's interpretation would disallow credit not contemplated by the Rules. Another Co-ordinate Bench (E-connect) followed Reliance. A contrary earlier decision (Thyssenkrupp) predates the amendment and adopted a different proposition but did not have the benefit of the amended text. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Madras) later observed that the amendments removed distortion and granted relief to an assessee. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the pre-amendment clause textually, noting that the express wording of sub-clause (iii) used 'P denotes total CENVAT credit taken on input services'. However, reading Rule 6 as a whole (Rules 6(1)-(3)) shows the scheme distinguishes (a) credit exclusively for exempted outputs, (b) credit exclusively for non-exempted outputs, and (c) common credit used for both. A harmonious and purposive reading avoids producing an anomaly where credit exclusively used for taxable outputs would be disallowed. The Tribunal observed the post-amendment Rule 6(3A) explicitly introduces notation for Annual eligible credit (B), Annual ineligible credit (A), common credit (C), and attribution of common credit (D), thereby clarifying the intended categories. Reliance held that the amendment was clarificatory and retrospective; the Tribunal found that approach persuasive and consistent with the scheme of Rule 6, and with the Madras High Court's view that the amendment removed distortion from strict pre-amendment application. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The correct interpretation of 'P' in pre-amendment Rule 6(3A) is that it denotes only common CENVAT credit arising from inputs/input services used both for exempted and non-exempted goods/services. Obiter - discussion of the historical development of Rule 6 and reference to earlier contrary authority (Thyssenkrupp) serve as contextual reasoning but are not followed as binding on the issue given subsequent interpretative developments and High Court guidance. Conclusions: For the tax periods under consideration (April 2012 to March 2014), the variable 'P' in Rule 6(3A) denotes only common credit - i.e., credit attributable to inputs/input services used both for exempted and non-exempted outputs - and does not include credit exclusively used for taxable outputs. Consequently, substitution of total credit for common credit by the Adjudicating Authority was incorrect and rendered demands based on that substitution bad in law. Issue 2: Clarificatory effect of the 01.04.2016 amendment to Rule 6(3A) and retrospective application Legal framework: Notification amending Rule 6(3A) (effective 01.04.2016) rephrased the clause to explicitly segregate Annual ineligible credit (A), Annual eligible credit (B), common credit (C), and the formula attributing common credit to exempted outputs (D = (H/I) × C(Annual)). Precedent treatment: Reliance Industries (Co-ordinate Bench) treated the substituted provision as clarificatory and retrospective in effect, holding that the amendment clarified the original intent and remedied an anomaly. E-connect followed Reliance. The Madras High Court's later decision endorsed the remedial nature of amendment language in granting relief. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that the amendment merely made explicit the categories implicit in the Rule 6 scheme and removed distortions that would have arisen from a strict literal reading of pre-amendment text. Given that the post-amendment text expressly contemplates common credit and its attribution, it confirms that the earlier scheme operated to deny disallowance of credits exclusively used for taxable outputs. The Tribunal relied on the persuasive precedents and the High Court observation to conclude the amendment supports a retrospective, clarificatory construction aligning pre-amendment interpretation with post-amendment text. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The amendment is clarificatory and supports reading pre-amendment Rule 6(3A) as referring to common credit; such interpretive effect justifies applying that understanding to periods prior to the amendment. Obiter - considerations about legislative intent beyond the text and remediation of administrative distortion are supportive reasoning rather than separate holdings. Conclusions: The amendment of 01.04.2016 confirms and clarifies that the computation under Rule 6(3A) is to be effected with reference to common credit; that clarification can be applied to pre-amendment periods to avoid anomalous disallowance of credit exclusively used for taxable outputs. Issue 3: Need to adjudicate consequential issues of interest and penalty Legal framework and reasoning: Issues relating to interest under Rule 14 and penalty under Rule 15(1) are consequential upon the determination of the principal liability under Rule 6(3A). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the principal demand is quashed on merits, consequential demands (interest/penalty) do not require separate adjudication in the appeal. Obiter - none. Conclusions: Having held that the principal demand based on substituting total credit for common credit is bad in law, the consequences (interest and penalty) do not merit adjudication and fall with the principal order; the impugned order is held bad in law and the appeals are allowed.