2011 (1) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - CENVAT credit in respect of duty paid on inputs capital goods and input service in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 assessee maintained separate accounts in respect of common inputs used both for dutiable and exempted products; however they did not maintain separate accounts of common input services used in the manufacture of both categories of products - For the period prior to 1.4.08 the assessees are covered by provisions of retrospectively amended Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act 2010 which provides that pending reversal of credit may be made as per the formula prescribed under Rule 6 (3A) along with interest @ 24% per annum - assessees have already reversed the credit on input service attributable to the value of exempted goods on the basis of percentage of the value of exempted goods and deriving the same percentage of CENVAT credit availed together with interest - once the credit reversed on exempted goods it is deemed that credit has not been taken the demand set aside as not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessees maintained separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods as required by Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Whether the demand raised by the authorities for the period prior to 1.4.08 and from April 08 to Aug 08 is sustainable.
3. Whether the penalty imposed on the assessees is justified.

Analysis:

1. The assessees, manufacturers of pharma products, availed CENVAT credit for inputs, capital goods, and input services under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. They manufactured both dutiable and exempted goods but failed to maintain separate accounts for input services used in both categories of products, as required by Rule 6(2). The authorities issued show-cause notices for not maintaining separate accounts and not paying the required amount for exempted goods cleared. The demand was raised for the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08. The Tribunal noted the non-compliance but considered the assessees' actions in reversing credit on input services for exempted goods. The demand for the period up to 31.3.08 was set aside due to retrospective amendment under the Finance Act, 2010. The demand for the subsequent period was also set aside based on the assessees' compliance with Rule 6(3A) and a precedent from the Karnataka High Court.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the demands made for the periods before and after 1.4.08 separately. For the period prior to 1.4.08, the assessees' actions in reversing credit were found to align with the amended provisions, resulting in setting aside the demand. Similarly, for the period from April 08 to Aug 08, the assessees' compliance with Rule 6(3A) and the legal precedent led to the demand being deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal considered the assessees' adherence to the rules and legal requirements in reversing the credit on exempted goods, leading to the setting aside of the demands for both periods.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the assessees. The penalty imposed on the assessees was also set aside in light of the findings regarding the demands raised and the compliance shown by the assessees in reversing the credit on exempted goods. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining separate accounts as per the CENVAT Credit Rules and the significance of complying with legal provisions to avoid penalties and demands by the authorities.