2007 (1) TMI 455 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on capital goods received and installed prior to the goods becoming dutiable.
2. Liability to pay 8% of the value of exempted final products under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
3. Penalties imposed on the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Entitlement to Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods
The appellants received and installed capital goods in their factory from April 2002 to February 2003, during which period the final products were exempt from duty. The final products became dutiable from 1-3-2003. The appellants claimed Cenvat credit on these capital goods, arguing that Rule 4(2)(a) of the CCR 2002 allowed them to take credit of up to 50% of the duty paid on such capital goods at any point in the financial year they were received.

The department contested this, citing Rule 6(4) of the CCR 2002, which bars credit on capital goods used exclusively for manufacturing exempted goods. The Tribunal, referencing previous decisions (Surya Roshni, Binani Cement, Grasim Industries), held that the right to take credit is determined at the time of receipt of the capital goods. Since the capital goods were received when the final products were exempt, the appellants were not entitled to credit later when the products became dutiable. The demand of Rs. 29,40,702/- was thus confirmed.

Issue No. 2: Liability to Pay 8% of the Value of Exempted Final Products
The appellants were manufacturing both dutiable and exempted refined edible oils during March to December 2003. The department found that they had not maintained separate accounts for inputs used in manufacturing dutiable and exempted products, as required by Rule 6(2) of the CCR 2002, making them liable under Rule 6(3)(b) to pay 8% of the value of the exempted products, amounting to Rs. 3,78,10,848/-.

The appellants argued they maintained separate accounts and reversed any wrongly taken credit before the issuance of the SCN. The Tribunal found that the appellants did maintain separate accounts in substantial compliance with Rule 6(2) and that Rule 6(3) was not applicable. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 3,78,10,848/- was set aside. However, the appellants were directed to reverse any remaining credit taken on inputs used for exempted products to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.

Issue No. 3: Penalties
Given the partial allowance of the appeal and the nature of the dispute, which involved interpretation of the CCR 2002 provisions, the Tribunal set aside all penalties imposed on the appellants.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The demand of Rs. 29,40,702/- was confirmed, the demand of Rs. 3,78,10,848/- was set aside, and the penalties were annulled. The appellants were given an opportunity to reverse any remaining credit on inputs used for exempted products.