2012 (9) TMI 637 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - assessee had purchased the goods in the year 2001 and they had availed the credit - In the year 2006, the appellants had sold those goods and discharged the duty liability based on its depreciated value - department s contention is that since the goods have been removed as such in the year 2006, the entire credit is required to be reversed by them as the period of clearance of the goods is prior to amendment of Rule 3(5) Held that - Rule 3(5) refers to the situation which may arise not necessarily in relation to any processing or acting upon the capital goods for any purposes but even for the purpose of discarding the capital goods. Being so, the expression as such in Rule 3(5) cannot be understood in the same way as is to be understood in relation to the use thereof in Rule 4(5)(a) In favor of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the entire credit availed at the time of receipt of goods in 2001 should be reversed or duty discharged at depreciated value in 2006.
- Interpretation of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Applicability of amendments to Rule 3(5) post the period in question.

Analysis:
1. Issue 1 - Reversal of Credit: The appeal revolves around whether the appellants should reverse the entire credit availed at the time of receiving goods in 2001 or discharge duty at depreciated value upon sale in 2006. The department argued for full credit reversal, citing Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which mandates payment equal to the credit availed if capital goods are removed 'as such'. The appellants relied on a proviso inserted in Rule 3(5) post-amendment, allowing duty payment at depreciated value. The Tribunal referred to past cases and the distinction between rules to determine that the appellants were not required to reverse the entire credit, ultimately allowing the appeal.

2. Issue 2 - Rule Interpretation: The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The department contended that the goods being removed 'as such' necessitated full credit reversal, while the appellants argued for duty payment at depreciated value. The Tribunal analyzed the language of the rule and previous decisions to conclude that the appellants were not obligated to reverse the entire credit, as the rule's application was distinct from other provisions.

3. Issue 3 - Applicability of Amendments: The discussion also delved into the applicability of amendments to Rule 3(5) post the period under consideration. The appellants sought to benefit from a proviso inserted post-amendment, allowing duty payment at depreciated value. The Tribunal referenced relevant cases to support the appellants' position, emphasizing the distinction between rules and the impact of subsequent amendments on the case at hand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they were not required to reverse the entire credit availed at the time of initial receipt of goods in 2001. The decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the applicability of relevant amendments. The judgment highlighted the importance of rule clarity and consistency in applying legal provisions to specific cases, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the appellants based on established legal principles and precedents.