2016 (9) TMI 1170 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of Cenvat credit - Reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) passed on to the buyers - laminates manufactured by appellant - Department alleged that appellants wrongly paid Central Excise duty and wrongly passed on Cenvat Credit to their buyers - Held that - if Cenvat Credit was not admissible to them, then the Revenue should have issued show cause notice for reversal of Cenvat Credit availed by them. The show cause notice is issued for recovery of amount under Rule 6(3)(b) ibid, & the amount to be recovered under Rule 6(3)(b) ibid, is possible only when the Cenvat Credit is admissible. We find that contradictory stands were taken in the said show cause notice by the Revenue. Therefore, the show cause notice is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of Central Excise duty on laminates manufactured by the appellants.
2. Allegation of wrongly passing on Cenvat Credit to buyers.
3. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on duty paid on inputs, input services, and capital goods.
4. Manufacturing of excisable finished products without maintaining separate inventory.
5. Confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty by the Original Authority.
6. Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
7. Contradictory stands taken in the show cause notice by the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of Central Excise duty on laminates manufactured by the appellants falling under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue contended that the appellants wrongly paid Central Excise duty and passed on Cenvat Credit to buyers. The appellants argued that they were paying duty on laminates based on a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir allowing a similar unit to pay duty. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of ?60 lakhs.

2. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal, challenging the applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to their case. They argued that they did not manufacture dutiable and exempted goods simultaneously and questioned the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on raw materials. The appellants also cited various case laws to support their arguments.

3. During the appeal, the Counsel for the appellant emphasized that the manufacturing process involved first producing laminates and then converting them into pouches, ensuring that dutiable and exempted goods were not manufactured simultaneously. They relied on case laws such as Markwell Paper Plast Pvt. Ltd. and Paper Products Ltd. to strengthen their case.

4. The Revenue reiterated their contentions from the show cause notice and the Order-in-Original, maintaining that the demand and penalty were justified. However, upon careful consideration of the rival contentions, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice had contradictory stands regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal concluded that since Cenvat Credit was not admissible, the demand under Rule 6(3)(b) was unsustainable. Therefore, the Order-in-Original was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with all consequential reliefs as per the law.