9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1042 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit - Whether respondents are required to reverse the input credit availed on fuel used in the manufacture of exempted products as they manufactured both dutiable and exempted goods and availed input credit on fuel - Held that - The Rule 6 (1) stipulates for inputs are used for dutiable and exempted goods and sub-rule (2) of CCR stipulates that respondents should maintain separate inventory of inputs exempted and dutiable except intended to be used as fuel. The present case is only on the credit availed on fuel used in the exempted product. High Court of Gujarat in case of Commissioner Vs Shell Extruders (2008 (7) TMI 947 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the issue. In the present case, the lower appellate authority has discussed the issue in detail and rightly held that credit availed on furnace oil and oxygen which are fuel is permissible. By respectfully following the Hon'ble High Court order, I do not see any infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Whether the respondents are required to reverse the input credit availed on fuel used in the manufacture of exempted products. - Interpretation of Rule 6(1) and 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and 2004. - Applicability of retrospective amendment from September 2010. - Compliance with maintaining separate accounts for dutiable and exempted products. - Adherence to Larger Bench decision in Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs CCE Pune 1994 (73) ELT 835 (Tri.). Analysis: 1. Input Credit Reversal on Fuel: The main issue in this appeal was whether the respondents were required to reverse the input credit availed on fuel used in the manufacture of exempted products. The Revenue contended that since the respondents did not maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted products, they should reverse the proportionate credit on the fuel used. However, the lower appellate authority and the respondent's advocate argued that as per Rule 6(2) of CCR 2002, credit availed on fuel was excluded from the provisions of Rule 6(1) of CCR. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions and upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, citing precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the taxpayers. 2. Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules: The Tribunal analyzed Rule 6(1) and 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and 2004 to determine the applicability of input credit reversal on fuel used in the manufacture of exempted products. The rules required manufacturers to maintain separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, except for inputs intended to be used as fuel. The Tribunal found that the respondents were eligible to avail credit on fuel during the relevant period (April 2002 to March 2005) as per the applicable rules before the subsequent amendment. 3. Retrospective Amendment and Compliance: The Revenue argued for the application of a retrospective amendment from September 2010, requiring the reversal of proportionate amount on exempted goods. However, the Tribunal focused on the rules in force during the relevant period and the compliance of maintaining separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the respondents were entitled to avail credit on fuel based on the rules applicable at the time of the transactions. 4. Larger Bench Decision and Precedents: The Revenue cited the Larger Bench decision in Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. case and other judgments to support their argument for reversing input credit on fuel. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate relied on precedents like CCE Tirunelveli Vs Sudarsanam Spinning Mills and Commissioner Vs Shell Extruders to justify the allowance of credit on fuel used in the manufacture of exempted products. The Tribunal considered these precedents and upheld the lower appellate authority's decision based on the settled legal position established by the High Courts and Tribunal decisions. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and confirming that the respondents were not required to reverse the input credit availed on fuel used in the manufacture of exempted products based on the relevant provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules and established legal precedents.
|
