9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 891 - AT - Central ExciseRemoval of Inputs / Capital Goods As such Rule 3(5) of CC Rules Revenue contended that appellant should have paid the duty @ 16% on the inputs on which CENVAT Credit was availed, on the ground that the said clearance would amount to clearance of manufactured goods. - Whether the duty paid/ CENVAT Credit reversed equivalent to the credit taken on the inputs cleared as such by the appellants is correct or not Held that - Following Eicher Tractors Vs CCE Jaipur 2005 (9) TMI 340 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - It is seen that the Board vide its circular dated 25-4-2005 has categorically said that clarifications given in this Circular supersede the earlier Circular dated 1-7-2002 - The revenue cannot argue against its own Circular, when the Board has stated that the provisions of the Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would apply in respect of the capital goods and inputs on which credit has been availed are removed as such - the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Correct valuation of inputs cleared after availing CENVAT Credit. 2. Time bar for raising demand on the removal of inputs. 3. Applicability of CBEC Circular and Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Issue 1: The appeal concerned the correct valuation of inputs cleared after availing CENVAT Credit. The Revenue contended that duty should be paid at 16% on the inputs cleared, while the appellant argued that they had reversed the exact amount of CENVAT Credit availed. The first appellate authority set aside the demand, relying on the interpretation of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The authority referenced a CBEC Circular and previous Tribunal decisions, including Eicher Tractors case, to support the appellant's position. The Tribunal agreed with the first appellate authority, emphasizing that the duty liability on inputs had been discharged at the time of their original removal, and there was no provision for reassessment of duty on cleared goods. Issue 2: The time bar for raising the demand on the removal of inputs was also discussed. The demand was raised after the normal one-year period from removal, leading to the question of suppression or willful misstatement by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the Department was aware of the facts due to the appellant's regular submission of returns as required by law. As there was no evidence of suppression or willful misstatement, the show cause notice was deemed time-barred. Issue 3: The applicability of the CBEC Circular and Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was crucial in determining the correct valuation of inputs cleared after availing CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal reiterated the provisions of Rule 3(5) and the CBEC Circular, emphasizing the requirement for the appellant to pay an amount equal to the credit availed on such inputs at the time of removal. Relying on the Circular and previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, concluding that the impugned order was legally sound and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the first appellate authority's decision based on the correct interpretation of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the absence of suppression or willful misstatement regarding the time bar issue. The judgment highlighted the importance of following statutory provisions and relevant circulars in determining duty liability on cleared inputs after availing CENVAT Credit.
|
