2014 (3) TMI 1054 - HC - Central Excise

Reversal of Cenvat Credit - common inputs - Whether Rule 6(3)(b) is mandatory where separate inventory was not maintained - Reversal of credit @8% as per the Rule 6(3)(b) or proportionate reversal of the credit - manufacturing of dutiable and exempted products - Held that - where the credit taken has been reversed on inputs utilised in manufacturing of the final exempted product stand deleted in the account of the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final product, which is exempted - No demand - decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding reversal of credit on disputed inputs.
2. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases to the present scenario.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules concerning the reversal of credit on disputed inputs. The Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore dismissed the appeal filed by the department, stating that the manufacturer must reverse 8% of the price of exempted goods if common inputs were used for both dutiable and exempted products. The Tribunal based its decision on the precedent set by the case of GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LIMITED Vs. CCE, VISAKHAPATNAM. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CHANDRAPUR MAGNET WIRES LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR 1996, to support its decision that if the credit taken has been reversed on inputs utilized in manufacturing the final exempted product, it cannot be considered as credit for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57-A. The Commissioner Appeals also cited circular No.591/28/2001-Cx, emphasizing that credit is admissible only if duty is paid on final products and detailing the consequences of not fulfilling the requirements of maintaining separate accounts or paying 8% of the total price of exempted goods.

2. The second issue pertains to the applicability of previous judgments in similar cases to the present scenario. The Commissioner Appeals ruled that the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be applied to the clearances in question, and the demand for a specific amount under Section 11A and interest under Section 11AB was deemed unnecessary. The Commissioner Appeals set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, M/s. SPM Instrument India Pvt. Ltd. The High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, stating that there was no contrary opinion or judgment presented to warrant a different view. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no costs awarded.