2012 (3) TMI 182 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit attributable to the inputs used in the exempted goods and/or payment of 8% or 10% of the value of the exempted goods - period involved 01.03.2004 to 31.01.2009 Held that - Retrospective amendment brought in by the Budget 2008 renders that reversal of CENVAT Credit attributable to the inputs utilized in exempted product is enough and assessee need not to reverse 8% or 10% of the value of the exempted goods. Further, amendment also brought to the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In present case, assessee had reversed an amount of Rs.20,14,456/- and interest of Rs.16,10,915/-. Whereas CENVAT attributable to the inputs used in exempted goods comes to Rs.11,81,141/-. We find that adjudicating authority has not considered all these aspects in proper perspective thus, issue needs to be re-considered by the adjudicating authority Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Reversal of CENVAT Credit for exempted goods, retrospective amendment applicability, interpretation of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, proper consideration of debits made by the assessee, remand for re-consideration by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:

1. Reversal of CENVAT Credit for Exempted Goods:
The appeal dealt with the issue of the reversal of CENVAT Credit attributable to inputs used in exempted goods and the requirement to pay 8% or 10% of the value of exempted goods cleared by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that a retrospective amendment by the Budget 2008 applied to the case, stating that the reversal of CENVAT Credit for inputs used in exempted products was sufficient. The appellant's argument regarding the calculation of CENVAT attributable to exempted goods was considered, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination by the adjudicating authority.

2. Retrospective Amendment Applicability and Rule 6 Interpretation:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the retrospective amendment introduced by the Budget 2008, which impacted the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The amendment clarified the procedure for claiming the reversal of proportionate CENVAT Credit, indicating that the reversal of credit for inputs in exempted goods was the primary requirement, eliminating the necessity to pay additional percentages based on the value of exempted goods.

3. Consideration of Debits and Remand for Re-consideration:
The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had not adequately considered all aspects, including the debits made by the assessee and the arguments presented. Due to this oversight, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. The Tribunal stressed the need for a detailed review of the factual matrix by the adjudicating authority, ensuring a comprehensive analysis before reaching a decision.

4. Principles of Natural Justice and Direction to Cooperate:
In line with the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal directed the assessee to cooperate with the adjudicating authority during the re-consideration process, particularly when a personal hearing is granted. By setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal through remand, the Tribunal aimed to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the issues involved, maintaining procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues addressed, the Tribunal's findings, and the directions given for further consideration, emphasizing the importance of legal principles and procedural fairness in the adjudication process.