2016 (11) TMI 1216 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Reversal of CENAVT credit - medicines destroyed being unfit for human consumption during the period November 2011 to May 2012 - Held that - I find that the provisions of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 is attracted in the present case as the Appellant by their own admission has destroyed the waste pharmaceutical, same being expired medicine unfit for consumption of human being and therefore, the Appellant were required to have applied for the remission permission from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. Therefore, as per the remission permission granted by the jurisdictional authorities, the Appellant should have remitted the duty payable on such goods. Therefore, I find that by not applying for remission of duty the Appellant has contravened the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002. CENVAT Credit taken on the inputs used in the manufacture or production of any goods is required to be reversed if the payment of duty is ordered to be remitted under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002. I also find that the Board, vide circular No.800/33/2004-CX, dt.01.01.2004 has clarified that the credit of Excise duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods, on which duty has been remitted due to damage or destruction etc., is not permissible and dues with interest should be recovered. I find that reversal of CENVAT Credit on inputs contained in the waste pharmaceuticals destroyed are governed by the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with sub-rule 5C of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 (inserted vide No.33/2007-CE(NT), dt.07.09.2007). Therefore, I find that the CENVAT Credit was rightly reversed by the Appellant and the refund claim filed by them is rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of CENVAT Credit on destroyed goods.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for CENVAT Credit reversed on destroyed medicines. The Appellant reversed credit on inputs in medicines destroyed due to being unfit for human consumption. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim, stating that the Appellant should have applied for remission of duty as per Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules 2002. The Appellant's contention that they did not need remission permission was dismissed. The Commissioner found that the Appellant contravened Rule 21 by not applying for remission of duty. The Notification No.33/2007-CE(NT) was deemed applicable, requiring reversal of CENVAT Credit on destroyed goods. The Board's circular clarified that credit on inputs used in finished goods, where duty is remitted due to damage, should not be permissible. The Commissioner upheld the reversal of CENVAT Credit on destroyed pharmaceuticals, citing Rule 21 and sub-rule 5C of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.

The Appellant's argument that the Notification No.33/2007-CE(NT) did not apply to waste pharmaceuticals was rejected. The Commissioner emphasized that CENVAT Credit on inputs used in manufacturing goods must be reversed if duty is remitted under Rule 21. The circular clarified that credit on inputs used in finished goods with remitted duty should not be allowed. The Commissioner concluded that the Appellant rightly reversed the CENVAT Credit and rejected their refund claim. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of complying with remission rules and reversing CENVAT Credit on destroyed goods as per relevant regulations.