2015 (10) TMI 864 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - credit of Additional Duties of Excise (textile and textile articles) - Held that - Initially the respondent was manufacturing cotton yarn and man-made yarn. By Notification No. 30/2004-CE, their final product became exempt, therefore, under wrong impression reverse cenvat credit on inputs or finished goods which was not required to be reversed.Therefore, they utilise cenvat credit of additional duty of excise (textile and textile articles) for reversal of cenvat credit for packing material. In fact, during that period, respondent was not required to reverse the credit, therefore, question of utilisation of additional duty of excise (textile and textile articles) does not arise - when respondent was not required to reverse the cenvat credit on packing material at the time their final product became exempt, therefore, utilized additional duty of excise (T&T) for payment of duty does not arise - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Revenue appeal against utilization of cenvat credit of Additional Duties of Excise (textile and textile articles) for payment of excise duty.

Analysis:
1. Issue: Interpretation of Rule 3(7)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- The Revenue contended that the respondent was not entitled to utilize the cenvat credit of Additional Duties of Excise for payment of excise duty as per Rule 3(7)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the cenvat credit to the respondent based on the fact that the final product of the respondent became exempt under Notification No. 30/2004-CE.

2. Analysis:
- The respondent, under a mistaken belief, reversed cenvat credit on inputs or finished goods when it was not required to do so due to the exemption of the final product.
- The respondent utilized the cenvat credit of additional duty of excise (textile and textile articles) for the reversal of cenvat credit for packing material during a period when the goods were leviable to duty but later cleared at zero rate of duty.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly observed that the reversal of cenvat credit on inputs cleared at zero rate of duty was not necessary based on relevant legal precedents.

3. Analysis:
- The CESTAT concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that since the respondent was not required to reverse the cenvat credit on packing material when their final product became exempt, the utilization of additional duty of excise (T&T) for payment of duty was not a valid issue.
- The CESTAT found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it based on the lack of infirmity in the impugned order and the correct application of legal principles by the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the judgment by the CESTAT New Delhi upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the utilization of cenvat credit of Additional Duties of Excise for payment of excise duty by the respondent, based on the exemption of the final product and the legal precedents cited in support of the decision.