2016 (12) TMI 213 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of input tax credit - common input service - the respondent has not reversed the credit availed on common input service used in the manufacture of final exempted products before their clearance, therefore, the respondent is required to pay 10% of the value of final exempted products - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Dr. Writer s Food Products Pvt.Ltd. 2009 (3) TMI 846 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where similar issue was decided, and it was held that payment of duty on yarn on deferred basis took place before clearance of grey fabrics on which exemption was claimed. Therefore, payment was made before the stage of exemption. Similarly, on payment of duty on the input (yarn) the assessee got the credit which was never utilized. That before utilization, the entry has been reversed which amounts to not taking credit. Hence, in this case, both the conditions are satisfied. Hence, item no. 1 of the table to Notification No. 14/2002-C.E would apply and accordingly the grey fabrics would attract nil rate of duty. Respondent not required to pay an amount equal to 10% - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether reversal of credit availed on common input service used in the manufacture of final exempted products before their clearance absolves the liability to pay 10% of the value of final exempted products.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order where the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the reversal of credit availed on common input service used in the manufacture of final exempted products was sufficient. The respondent had maintained separate accounts for common input services used in the manufacture of dutiable/exempted goods. The issue arose when the Revenue contended that the respondent should pay 10% of the value of final exempted products as the respondent had not reversed the credit before clearance of the goods.

2. The Revenue's argument was based on the fact that the respondent did not reverse the credit availed on common input service used in the manufacture of final exempted products before their clearance. However, the respondent argued that a similar issue was addressed by the Tribunal in a previous case, Dr. Writer's Food Products Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the reversal of credit after clearance of the final products could absolve the liability to pay 10% of the total price of the exempted product.

3. The Tribunal referred to judgments by the Allahabad High Court and the High Court of Gujarat, which supported the view that reversal of credit after the clearance of exempted goods could be considered as not taking the credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the respondent had not only reversed the credit but also paid interest, indicating the act of undoing the credit utilization. The Tribunal concluded that based on the previous decision in Dr. Writer's Food Products Pvt. Ltd., there was no infirmity in the impugned order, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that if the credit is reversed after utilization and after the clearance of exempted goods, it would still amount to not taking the credit. The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions aligned with the judgments of the Allahabad and Gujarat High Courts, leading to the conclusion that the respondent was not required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of final exempted products.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, citing the decision in Dr. Writer's Food Products Pvt. Ltd. as precedent. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order regarding the reversal of credit availed on common input service used in the manufacture of final exempted products.