2016 (8) TMI 383 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of Cenvat credit - Contravention of Rule 6(1) & 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - clearance of upholstery furniture to SEZ developer after availing credit on inputs and without payment of duty, in the nature of export - non-maintainance of separate accounts of receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs - Held that - in the light of the decisions by the Tribunal and the Hon ble High Court of A.P in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd 2015 (3) TMI 781 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT and also the decisions of Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of UOI Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd 2013 (5) TMI 460 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT and Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Vs Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt Ltd 2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , the amendment to Rule 6(6) to include SEZ developer with effect from 31.12.2008 has retrospective effect from 2004 onwards and therefore no reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to SEZ developer is required under law. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues: Appeal against duty demand and penalty for clearance of goods to SEZ developer without payment of duty under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules 2002.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The case involved the clearance of excisable final products to a SEZ developer without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, covered by ARE-1 and complying with Central Excise Laws.

2. Allegations and Proceedings: The department issued a show-cause notice demanding duty and penalty under various rules, alleging contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 related to availing credit on inputs used in manufacturing final goods cleared to SEZ developer without payment of duty.

3. Original Authority's Decision: The original authority confirmed the duty demand, imposed interest, and penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.

4. Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals): The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the original authority's order, leading to the present appeal.

5. Appellant's Contentions: The appellant argued that previous tribunal and high court decisions favored their position on the reversal of CENVAT Credit for goods supplied to SEZ developers, citing cases such as Sujana Metal Products Ltd Vs CCE Hyderabad and UOI Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.

6. Department's Response: The department challenged some tribunal decisions but acknowledged that high court judgments supported the appellant's stance.

7. Tribunal's Decision: Considering arguments and precedents, the Tribunal, per S. S. Garg, set aside the impugned order, finding it legally unsustainable and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the clearance of goods to a SEZ developer without duty payment, focusing on the applicability of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by previous tribunal and high court judgments, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on legal interpretations and precedents.