Cenvat credit inputs cleared "as such" at higher resale value: Rule 3(5) reversal insufficient; Section 11D recovery upheld

Where inputs on which Cenvat credit was taken were cleared "as such" at a value higher than the purchase price, the dominant issue was whether reversal under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 exhausted the assessee's liability and whether Section 11D of the Central Excise Act applied. The Tribunal held that clearance "as such" is not "manufacture" under Section 2(f), so duty on manufacture was not attracted; however, Section 11D mandates deposit with the Central Government of any amount collected from buyers in excess or as representing excise duty. Since the assessee collected an excess amount and did not deposit it, recovery under Section 11D was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, on removal of inputs "as such" after reversing CENVAT credit equal to the credit originally availed, any additional amount becomes payable when the inputs are sold at a higher value than the purchase value.

(ii) Whether the difference attributable to clearance of inputs "as such" at a higher sale value can be recovered by applying Section 11D on the footing that an amount stood collected "as representing duty of excise", and whether such differential is required to be discharged through Personal Ledger Account (cash) rather than by further utilisation of CENVAT credit.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Liability on "as such" removal when sale value exceeds purchase value

Legal framework: The Court considered Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (as applicable) governing removal of inputs/capital goods "as such", requiring payment of an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs, and the related limitation on utilisation of CENVAT credit under Rule 3(4).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that the appellant had complied with Rule 3(5) to the extent of reversing the credit originally taken at receipt of inputs. However, it held that the audit-established fact remained that the inputs were cleared "as such" at a higher price than the purchase price, without any manufacturing activity. The Court affirmed the finding that the value addition (including inward freight and profit margin) reflected trading activity while operating under manufacturing registration, and treated the differential value realised on sale as material for determining the appellant's further liability beyond mere reversal of original credit.

Conclusion: Mere reversal of CENVAT credit equal to the original credit availed under Rule 3(5) did not exhaust the appellant's liability where the inputs were sold "as such" at a higher value and the transaction resulted in collection/realisation of an excess amount; the demand on the differential was upheld.

Issue (ii): Applicability of Section 11D and mode of payment (PLA/cash) for the differential

Legal framework: The Court applied Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates deposit with the Government of any amount collected from a buyer "in any manner as representing duty of excise" in excess of duty assessed/determined and paid. The Court also relied on the binding legal position (as applied in the impugned order) that when amounts are collected over and above the credit required to be reversed on "as such" removals, the excess cannot be neutralised by further CENVAT credit utilisation and must be paid through PLA.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 11D squarely covers situations where an assessee has collected an amount from the purchaser which exceeds what is payable, or is collected as representing duty, and requires such amount to be deposited forthwith. On the facts as found, the appellant collected/realised an amount from purchasers exceeding the purchase value while clearing inputs "as such"; having not deposited the excess in terms of Section 11D, recovery was held permissible. The Court further held, consistently with the applied legal position, that any amount collected beyond the exact credit required to be reversed cannot be adjusted by CENVAT credit and must be discharged through PLA (cash/bank).

Conclusion: Section 11D was held applicable to the excess amount realised/collected in the course of "as such" clearances at higher value, and the differential liability was held recoverable and payable through PLA rather than by further utilisation of CENVAT credit; consequently, the confirmed demand with interest and penalty was sustained and the appeal was rejected.

---