2015 (10) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - reversal of proportionate credit towards exempted goods or the appellant is required to pay 10% amount on the value of exempted goods as per the provision of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - the present case is covered by the decision in the case of Swiss Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad 2014 (6) TMI 720 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and Global Pharmatech Pvt Ltd. 2011 (1) TMI 234 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The only aspect required to be verified is whether amounts proportionate to exempted goods stand reversed as per appellant s Letter dated 28.10.2010, alongwith interest, as agitated by learned AR - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Whether the appellant is required to pay 10% amount on the value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

Analysis:
Issue 1: Payment of 10% amount on exempted goods
The appellant filed an appeal against OIA No BC/18/SURAT-II/2011, where the Adjudicating Authority's decision was upheld. The appellant argued that they had reversed the entire CENVAT credit taken on common inputs used for both dutiable and exempted goods. They contended that as per Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010, they were only required to pay the credit proportionate to the CENVAT credit involved in exempted goods. The appellant relied on case laws to support their argument. On the other hand, the Revenue defended the lower authorities' orders, emphasizing the need to verify the payments made by the appellant. The Tribunal analyzed the case records and referred to case laws such as Swiss Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. and Global Pharmatech Pvt. Ltd. to decide in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for proper verification of the appellant's claim of reversal of CENVAT credit on inputs attributable to the manufacture of exempted final products.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed on merits, but the verification of the amounts paid by the appellant was deemed necessary. The case was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of the amounts paid by the appellant. The appellant would be given a personal hearing before a decision is made on the verification. The appeal was allowed by way of remand solely for the issue of verifying the amounts paid by the appellant.