2005 (9) TMI 340 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of the capital goods - Availment and reversal of Cenvat credit on Inputs purchased for use in final products at the time of removing from the factory - HELD THAT - It is seen that the Board vide its circular dated 25-4-2005 has categorically said that clarifications given in this Circular supersede the earlier Circular dated 1-7-2002 . The revenue cannot argue against its own Circular, when the Board has stated that the provisions of the Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would apply in respect of the capital goods and inputs on which credit has been availed are removed as such. Thus, we hold that the reference has to be answered in favour of the appellants. Since no other issue arises in the said matter, the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of capital goods and inputs for Cenvat credit when removed as such

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the correct valuation of capital goods and inputs for Cenvat credit when removed from the factory. The conflict arose regarding the value determination of goods removed by reversing the credit availed on such inputs. The Revenue contended that duty should be levied on the transaction value at the time of removal, while the appellants argued that the value should be determined based on the Circulars issued by the Board.

2. The appellants availed Cenvat credit on inputs for their final products and reversed the credit when removing the inputs from the factory. The dispute centered on whether the duty should be calculated based on the transaction value at the time of removal or as per the Circulars issued by the Board. The Revenue claimed that Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules mandates payment equal to the duty of excise on the value determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act at the time of removal.

3. The appellants relied on Circulars issued by the Board, particularly Circular No. 6/39/2000-CX.-I and Circular No. 813/10/2005, which provided clarifications on the valuation of goods removed as such. The Circulars emphasized that Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should apply in such situations, superseding earlier guidelines. The appellants argued that the Circulars supported their position regarding the valuation of goods removed by reversing the credit availed.

4. The Board clarified through subsequent Circulars that Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies to situations where inputs or capital goods are removed as such. The Circulars emphasized that the provisions of the Rule should govern the valuation of goods removed by reversing the credit availed. The Revenue's argument against the Circulars was dismissed, stating that the Board's clarification favored the appellants' position.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellants, citing the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as per the Circulars issued by the Board. The decision was based on the Board's clear instruction that the Rule should apply to determine the duty payable when goods on which credit was availed are removed as such. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, as no other issues were raised in the matter.