2017 (3) TMI 776 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6(4) of the CCR 2002 - exemption under N/N. 49/2003 dated10.06.2003 vide which the goods were exempted from whole of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise which were manufactured in the new units located in the Uttarakhand for the period of 10 years was denied - Held that - an identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of The General Manager Century Pulp & Paper vs CCE Meerut-II Final Order No. 50862-50864/2017 dated 15.02.2017 wherein it was held that the appellant assessee will be entitled to the Cenvat credit availed and credited to their Cenvat credit account prior to 03.02.2007 the day when the assessee opted for benefit of the N/N. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003 - credit allowed - appeal allowed. Reversal of Refund claim granted - The Commissioner (Appeals) has granted the refund pertaining to the reversal of the Cenvat Credit as per Rule 6(4) of the CCR 2002 - Held that - the assessee-Appellants are entitled for the reversal of the Cenvat Credit we find no merit in the appeals filed by the Department. Hence both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed. Appeal disposed off - appeal of assessee allowed - appeal of Department dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of Cenvat Credit under Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
2. Refund claim of Cenvat Credit.

Reversal of Cenvat Credit under Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002:
The appeal involved the assessee-Appellants challenging the denial of reversal of Cenvat Credit under Rule 6(4) by the authorities. The issue spanned the period from 30.01.2003 to 23.02.2004 and 28.01.2003 to 27.11.2003. The assessee-Appellants were engaged in manufacturing Kraft Paper and enjoyed exemption under Notification No. 49/2003. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and the decision of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in Apco Farm Ltd. case, emphasizing that Cenvat credit validly availed for inputs used in manufacturing a final product exempted later is not liable for reversal. The Tribunal also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court supporting the non-reversal of legally taken credits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee-Appellants, holding that the Cenvat credit availed and credited before a specific date was not required to be reversed.

Refund claim of Cenvat Credit:
The Department filed appeals related to the refund claim deposited before the order-in-original but claimed later. The Commissioner (Appeals) had granted the refund concerning the reversal of Cenvat Credit under Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. However, following the decision regarding the reversal of Cenvat Credit in favor of the assessee-Appellants, the Tribunal found no merit in the Department's appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, and those by the assessee-Appellants were allowed. The Tribunal concluded by pronouncing the decision in the open court, upholding the reversal of Cenvat Credit for the assessee-Appellants and dismissing the Department's appeals for refund claims.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant laws and rules.