2017 (3) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - by taking the credit at the time of receipt of the inputs the condition of notification was violated - credit was reversed later - Held that - the Board has clarified that if the credit of inputs used in the exempted goods under N/N. 30/2004 is reversed before utilisation, it would amount to credit not having been taken. Accordingly, the condition of the notification stands meet out - In the present case, the fact is not under dispute that the appellant availed the credit at the time of receipt of the inputs which was partially used in the exempted goods but at the time of clearance of the exempted goods, they have reversed the credit - the appellants have complied with the condition of N/N. 30/2004-CE - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of notification no. 30/2004-CE regarding availing of cenvat credit on inputs for goods cleared under exemption, Compliance with conditions of non-availment of cenvat credit, Reversal of cenvat credit attributed to exempted goods, Denial of exemption and demand of differential duty, Imposition of penalty by adjudicating authority, Practical difficulty in segregating inputs for dutiable and exempted goods.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing excisable goods under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, availing cenvat credit on inputs. The dispute arose when the department observed that the appellants were clearing finished products for export on duty payment while also clearing products for home consumption under exemption notification no. 30/2004-CE. The contention was whether reversal of cenvat credit attributed to exempted goods amounted to non-availment of credit as per the notification's conditions.

2. The appellant argued that despite availing credit at input receipt, they reversed credit for exempted goods before clearance, citing various judgments and circulars endorsing their method. The revenue, however, reiterated that availing cenvat credit on inputs violated the notification's condition, leading to denial of exemption and demand for differential duty. The revenue also sought imposition of penalty, which the adjudicating authority refrained from.

3. After considering both sides' submissions, an important legal development was highlighted regarding the practical difficulty in segregating inputs for dutiable and exempted goods. The Supreme Court's decision in a similar case emphasized that reversal of credit before utilization should allow for exemption. The Board's circular further clarified that reversing credit before utilization equated to credit not being taken, meeting the notification's condition.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the appellants complied with the notification's condition by reversing credit for exempted goods before utilization. Therefore, the demand for duty was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. As the demand was dismissed, no penalty was imposed. The revenue's appeal was also dismissed, affirming the appellants' compliance with the notification.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in interpreting and applying exemption notifications, cenvat credit rules, and practical challenges faced by manufacturers in complying with such regulations.