2009 (8) TMI 892 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - demand on the ground that the appellants have not maintained separate records for common input i.e. furnace oil, used in the manufacture of dutiable as also exempted products - Held that - no credit stand taken in respect of that part of dutiable furnace oil which has been used in the manufacture of exempted products. The demand at the rate of 10% of value of such exempted products is not called for - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of duty under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 based on lack of separate records for common input.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of confirming duty demand against the appellant due to the absence of separate records for common input, furnace oil, used in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted products. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand solely because separate accounts were not maintained, despite the appellant availing credit only for the quantity of furnace oil used in dutiable goods. The appellant argued that as per the Larger Bench decision in Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd., proportionate input credit reversal at the time of removal of exempted products suffices, even if the entire credit is taken. The appellant contended that the credit availed was within eligibility limits, rendering Rule 6(3)(b) unjustified.

The judgment concurs with the appellant's argument, emphasizing the original adjudicating authority's findings that no credit was taken for the part of dutiable furnace oil used in exempted product manufacturing. As such, the demand for 10% of the value of exempted products is deemed unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief for the appellant. The decision highlights the importance of adherence to credit eligibility limits and proportionate credit reversal for exempted product inputs, as established by precedent cases like Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd.

This judgment underscores the significance of maintaining clear records and complying with Cenvat Credit Rules to avoid unjustified duty demands. It showcases the Tribunal's commitment to upholding fairness and ensuring that demands are based on accurate credit utilization rather than mere procedural lapses. The reference to past decisions like Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. serves as a guiding precedent for interpreting and applying relevant rules in similar cases, promoting consistency and predictability in tax dispute resolutions.