2007 (8) TMI 569 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods without maintaining separate records.
2. Demand for payment of 10% of total value of clearances of exempted goods.
3. Allegations of non-compliance with Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Imposition of penalty and interest.
5. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.
6. Barred by limitation notice period.
7. Misinterpretation of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding availing Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods without maintaining separate records. The appellant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, faced a demand for payment equal to 10% of the total value of clearances of exempted goods due to non-maintenance of separate records for inputs used in the manufacturing process.

2. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand based on the appellant's failure to maintain separate inventory of inputs used in manufacturing dutiable and exempted goods. However, it was undisputed that the appellant had already reversed the Cenvat credit taken on inputs used in the production of exempted goods. Citing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases, it was concluded that the appellant could not be deemed to have availed Cenvat credit on such inputs in the eyes of the law.

3. The judgment referenced the case of M/s. Shri Durga Sewa Samiti, where a similar issue had been decided in favor of the appellant. This previous decision supported the finding that the demand confirmed in the impugned order was not maintainable, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the setting aside of the impugned order-in-original.

4. The appellant also raised arguments regarding the limitation period for issuing the notice, misinterpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and the absolute right to credit as established by previous judgments. The judgment agreed with these arguments and concluded that the demand for interest and penalty was not warranted based on the established legal principles and precedents.

5. In summary, the judgment ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order-in-original and allowing the appeal based on the legal principles established by previous judgments and the specific circumstances of the case.