2015 (10) TMI 1951 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - DTA Clearances - Held that - Appellant had correctly followed the procedure, as mandated in statutory provisions. We find that the reliance placed by the ld. Departmental Representative on the provisions of the Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 seems to be inappropriate for the reason that the said rule was inserted/substituted in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 17-3-2013 which would mean that on the date of clearances the said rule was not in existence. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed amount, correct duty liability on capital goods cleared to DTA, application of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
The stay petition was filed seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as differential duty, interest, and penalties. The Tribunal found that the appeal could be disposed of as it was narrow in scope. Consequently, the application for the waiver of pre-deposit was allowed, and the appeal was taken up for disposal.

Correct Duty Liability on Capital Goods Cleared to DTA:
The main issue revolved around the correct duty liability on capital goods cleared by the appellant to a unit in DTA. The appellant contended that they correctly paid the duty liability as per the direction of the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Revenue argued that Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 needed to be applied, requiring the appellant to reverse the Cenvat credit amount or an equivalent amount to the duty liability on the transaction value of the goods cleared to DTA.

Application of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner had specifically directed the appellant to calculate duty based on the provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant followed this direction and discharged the duty liability accordingly. It was highlighted that Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, relied upon by the Revenue, was inserted later and was not in existence at the time of clearances. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the appellant had correctly followed the statutory provisions, and the reliance on Rule 3(5A) was deemed inappropriate.

Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the correct statutory provisions in determining duty liability on goods cleared to DTA, highlighting the inapplicability of rules that were not in existence at the time of the transactions.