9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 560 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Exemption of fruit pulp - Held that - credit taken on Inputs & packing materials viz. metal containers/cans lying in stock and contained in final products lying in stock - Even though final product may be exempt from payment of excise, the assessee cannot be asked to reverse the MODVAT/CENVAT credit already taken by it - A right accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid the tax on the raw materials or the inputs, that right would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
- Interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding MODVAT credit. - Application of case law in determining the eligibility of MODVAT credit. - Discrepancy in the treatment of unutilized inputs when final products are exempted from duty. - Justification of the Tribunal's decision in distinguishing case law and upholding the denial of credit. - Compliance with the objective of the CENVAT credit scheme to reduce the cascading effect of taxation. Interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 regarding MODVAT credit: The judgment involved a batch of thirteen Central Excise Appeals concerning the interpretation of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appeals arose from a Common Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The issue revolved around whether MODVAT credit could be allowed on inputs and packing material when the final product is exempted from duty. Application of case law in determining the eligibility of MODVAT credit: The substantial question of law raised in all the appeals was whether the Tribunal was justified in distinguishing the case law of M/s. Albert David Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut, concerning the utilization of inputs when final goods were exempted from duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise contended that the decision in M/s. Albert David case should apply to the present situation, while the respondents argued that various High Courts had followed the judgment in Ashok Iron case, supporting the denial of credit in such scenarios. Discrepancy in the treatment of unutilized inputs when final products are exempted from duty: The respondents, industries manufacturing fruit pulp, were entitled to MODVAT credit on inputs and packing material. However, show cause notices were issued regarding the reversal of credit on unutilized empty metal containers and cans following an exemption from duty. The Assistant Commissioner's order confirmed the demand for duty on unutilized containers but dropped further proceedings on filled cans, considering relevant case law and judgments. Justification of the Tribunal's decision in distinguishing case law and upholding the denial of credit: The Tribunal, while considering the arguments presented, upheld the denial of MODVAT credit based on the insertion of Rule 57A(D) and Rule 57AH, which disallowed credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The judgment in M/s. Albert David case was found to be inapplicable due to the subsequent rule amendments and the decisions of various High Courts supporting the principles laid down in the Ashok Iron case. Compliance with the objective of the CENVAT credit scheme to reduce the cascading effect of taxation: The Court, after detailed reasoning and consideration of precedents, concluded that the denial of MODVAT credit in the present case was justified and in line with the objective of the CENVAT credit scheme to prevent the cascading effect of taxation. The appeals were deemed devoid of merits and dismissed, with pending Miscellaneous Petitions disposed of as infructuous.
|
