9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1872 - HC - Central ExciseReversal of proportionate Credit - Demand of 10% on exempted goods - amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is retrospective or prospective - extension of said amendment for the period from 7/2008 to 02/2011 - Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and period in dispute and the amendment, made to the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - With regard to the factual aspect as pointed out by the Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, both before the Tribunal as well as before us, we find that there has been no adjudication done by the Tribunal on the said aspect. This is crucial to ascertain the conduct of the assessee in the background of the facts as pointed out by the revenue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the case has to be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration to decide the factual issue, which has been raised by the Revenue, both before the Tribunal as well as before us. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Application of previous judicial decisions to the current case. 3. Failure to reverse CENVAT credit for exempted goods. 4. Need for fresh consideration on factual aspects by the Tribunal. Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 6 and Section 73: The appeal raised questions regarding the correctness of allowing the appeal based on the amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in conjunction with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal's decision to extend this amendment to a period beyond its specified applicability was a key point of contention. Issue 2: Application of Previous Judicial Decisions: The central issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal erred in following its earlier decision in a specific case and if it adequately assessed the factual position regarding the exercise of options under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The relevance and applicability of past judgments were crucial in determining the outcome of the current dispute. Issue 3: Failure to Reverse CENVAT Credit: The Revenue argued that the assessees failed to reverse the CENVAT credit used in manufacturing exempted goods within the prescribed timeline. It was contended that the reversal of CENVAT credit was done belatedly and not in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The absence of a formal letter exercising the option to reverse the credit for exempted goods was also highlighted. Issue 4: Fresh Consideration on Factual Aspects: The Court emphasized the need for a fresh consideration by the Tribunal on the factual aspects raised by the Revenue. It was noted that the Tribunal had not adjudicated on these crucial aspects, which were essential to understanding the conduct of the assessees in light of the Revenue's contentions. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a thorough reevaluation in line with the observations made in the judgment. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the matter for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of adjudicating on the factual aspects raised by the Revenue. The Court clarified that the previous decision cited could not be directly applied to the current case, highlighting the need for a detailed examination of the factual background to reach a just conclusion.
|
