2016 (2) TMI 1080 - AT - Service Tax

Reversal of CENVAT credit - during the course of manufacture of sugar, bagasse comes into existence, Revenue took a view that bagasse is a manufactured product and inasmuch as the same is being cleared without payment of duty, the assessee is required to reverse a particular percentage of the credit so availed by them in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR - Held that - the issue is no longer res integra. The Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills Vs UOI & Others 2013 (7) TMI 159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has struck down the Boards Circular and has held that there is no cause for payment of any amount of CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on inputs used in the production of electricity from bagasse?
2. Whether the appellant is required to reverse a percentage of the credit availed in terms of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of sugar and other products, availed CENVAT credit on various inputs, capital goods, and input services as per CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The dispute arose regarding the utilization of bagasse, a by-product in sugar manufacturing, for electricity production by the appellant. The Revenue contended that as bagasse is considered a manufactured product and used for electricity generation, the appellant should not be entitled to full credit on inputs, input services, or capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially ruled in favor of the appellant, citing Tribunal precedents. However, the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and subsequent Tribunal cases to support their claim that no CENVAT credit reversal is required.

Issue 2:
The crucial aspect of whether the appellant must reverse a portion of the CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was central to the dispute. The Tribunal referred to the Allahabad High Court decision and other Tribunal judgments to establish that there is no obligation for the appellant to reverse any CENVAT credit amount. The Tribunal found that the issue had been settled in favor of the appellant based on legal precedents and held that there was no justification to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore resolved the issues concerning CENVAT credit entitlement on inputs used for electricity production from bagasse and the requirement to reverse credit under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The decision favored the appellant based on legal precedents and established that no CENVAT credit reversal was necessary in the circumstances outlined.