2011 (8) TMI 167 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit - Benefit of Notification No.01/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006 - Reversal of credit was subsequent to the availment of exemption notification - Held that - the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs. CCE 1995 -TMI - 44150 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has held that subsequent reversal of modvat credit amounts to non taking of credit on inputs and the benefit of exemption of notification cannot be denied even if reversal of credit on input was done - Therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the fact of reversal of credit.

Summary

Issues:
Benefit of Notification No.01/2006-ST denied due to availing credit, subsequent reversal of credit claimed, legal interpretation of credit reversal for exemption notification, need for verification of fact of credit reversal.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal, after waiving the pre-deposit conditions, delves into the core issue of denial of the benefit of Notification No.01/2006-ST to the appellants. The denial is based on the premise that the appellants availed credit, thus not meeting the notification's condition. However, the appellants argue that although they initially availed credit, it was subsequently reversed, equating to a scenario where no credit was actually utilized. Citing legal precedents, the appellants contend that the benefit of the notification should not be withheld due to the post-availment reversal of credit.

The Tribunal acknowledges that the issue has been settled previously by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Referring to the case law, it is established that the subsequent reversal of credit is tantamount to non-utilization of credit on inputs, thereby entitling the appellants to the benefit of the exemption notification. The Tribunal emphasizes that even if the credit reversal occurred at a later stage, such as during Tribunal proceedings, the benefit of the notification cannot be refused, as ruled in various judicial decisions.

Despite the clarity on the legal issue, the Tribunal considers the respondent's contention regarding the lack of verification regarding the reversal of credit. Consequently, the Tribunal sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the original adjudicating authority for the necessary verification of the factual aspect concerning the reversal of credit. This procedural step is deemed essential to ensure a thorough examination of the factual basis for the credit reversal claim, thereby upholding the principles of fair adjudication and due process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposes of the stay petitions and appeals in light of the above considerations, emphasizing the importance of factual verification in determining the applicability of the exemption notification based on the reversal of credit. The pronouncement of the judgment in open court signifies the conclusion of the proceedings pending further verification by the adjudicating authority.