2014 (1) TMI 377 - AT - Central Excise

Inputs cleared as such Reversal made for the cenvat credit taken Held that - Adoption of assessable value by adopting the value on which the goods were cleared from the depots in terms of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules is not justified as it is not the assessee who has manufactured the goods - The assessee had cleared the goods to their depots by debiting a particular transaction value and by reversing the amount which was equivalent to the original value of the inputs on which the same were received - the entire modvat credit availed by them was reversed Following Eicher Tractors vs. CCE, Jaipur 2005 (9) TMI 340 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the reversal of credit on cleared inputs.
2. Adoption of assessable value for differential duties based on the value of goods cleared from depots.
3. Interpretation of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules in the context of credit reversal.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the reversal of credit on inputs cleared by the respondents to their depots. The respondents had availed credit on the inputs, which was then reversed when the goods were cleared 'as such' to the depots. The Revenue sought to confirm differential duties based on the subsequent sale of goods from the depots at a higher value.

Issue 2:
The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the entire credit was reversed at the time of clearance to the depots. The Revenue's attempt to adopt the value of goods cleared from the depots for differential duties under Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules was deemed unjustified. The Commissioner granted relief to the respondents on this basis.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal, in agreement with the Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the reasoning that the assessee had cleared the goods to their depots by debiting a specific transaction value and reversing the equivalent amount of the original inputs' value. This action resulted in the reversal of the entire modvat credit availed by the respondents. The Tribunal referenced a previous Larger Bench decision in the case of Eicher Tractors vs. CCE, Jaipur [2005 (189) ELT 131 (Tri-LB)], which supported the Commissioner's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of correctly interpreting and applying valuation rules in the context of credit reversal on cleared inputs. The decision emphasizes the need for consistency in assessing duties and credits based on established legal principles and precedents.