2008 (7) TMI 314 - AT - Central Excise

Restriction on utilization of credit u/r 6(3) ceiling of credit of 20% of tax payable submission that the restriction on utilization of credit u/r 6(3) applies to only credit accruing on input & input services submission that R. 6(4) which governs eligibility of credit under capital goods doesn t have such restriction further submit that importing the restriction in R. 6(3) to credit available by R. 6(5) is not legally correct prima facie case in favour of appellant recovery stayed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of credit restrictions under Rule 6(3) in relation to input and input services.
2. Application of credit restrictions to credits under Rule 6(4) and 6(5).
3. Prima facie case for waiver of dues and stay of recovery till appeal disposal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of credit restrictions under Rule 6(3)
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of credit restrictions under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant argued that the restriction on credit utilization under Rule 6(3) only applies to credits accruing on input and input services, not on capital goods. The Commissioner had demanded duty and imposed penalties based on a different interpretation, which the appellant contested.

Issue 2: Application of credit restrictions to Rule 6(4) and 6(5)
The appellant also contested the application of quantitative restrictions on credit utilization under Rule 6(3) to credits under Rule 6(4) and 6(5). The appellant argued that Rule 6(4) concerning credit eligibility for capital goods does not have the same restrictions as Rule 6(3). Additionally, the appellant highlighted that Rule 6(5) specifies certain services as a special category, with credit availability not subject to the restrictions of Rule 6(1), 6(2), and 6(3).

Issue 3: Prima facie case for waiver of dues and stay of recovery
After considering the submissions and relevant provisions, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal held that the appellant had established a prima facie case in their favor for the waiver of dues. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to stay the recovery of the dues until the final disposal of the appeals. Due to the significant implications of the case, the Tribunal ordered the appeals to be expedited for a final hearing on a specified date.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the conflicting interpretations of credit restrictions under Rule 6(3) and their application to credits under Rule 6(4) and 6(5). The Tribunal sided with the appellant's arguments, acknowledging a prima facie case for the waiver of dues and ordering a stay on recovery pending appeal disposal.