2017 (5) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Liability of Interest - Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6(3A) of the CCR, 2004 - clearance of coarse ore without payment of duty - delay in reversal of credit or not? - Held that - an identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in assessee-Appellants own case Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur 2016 (11) TMI 575 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that there is a delay in reversing the proportionate credit by the appellant. The liability of interest for the delayed reversal of credit is confirmed against the appellant - in the present case there is no delay pertaining to the reversal of credit, hence there is no question of charging the interest - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original dated 25.11.2013 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur for the period October 2011 to December 2011.
- Dispute regarding clearance of Coarse Ore to other units without payment of duty.
- Availing Cenvat Credit on inputs and input services used in mining.
- Demand of duty under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Question of charging interest for delayed reversal of credit.
- Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules in relation to exempted goods.
- Comparison with similar cases for liability determination.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original dated 25.11.2013 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, pertaining to the period from October 2011 to December 2011. The dispute revolved around the clearance of Coarse Ore to other units without payment of duty. The assessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Zinc/Lead Concentrates and were availing Cenvat Credit on inputs and input services used in the mining process. The Department contended that duty was demandable under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, due to the clearance of exempted goods valued at a significant amount under a specific notification.

During the proceedings, the issue of charging interest for delayed reversal of credit was raised. The counsel for the assessee-Appellants argued that there was no delay in credit reversal, thus no basis for interest charges. The Department, however, supported the impugned order. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving the same appellant, where a similar issue was addressed. It was observed that the appellant had substantially complied with Rule 6 regarding the reversal of credit attributable to exempted clearances, except for a delay in reversing the proportionate credit. The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal justification for demanding 5% on the value of exempted clearances in the present case, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal based on the earlier precedent.

The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in relation to exempted goods and the comparison with similar cases for liability determination. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants was allowed, overturning the Order-in-Original and resolving the issues raised during the proceedings.