2017 (6) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - appellants procured copper from M/s Meta Copper and Alloy Pvt Ltd Goa (EOU) - the appellant is availing excess credit in respect of goods procured from the EOU - Held that - in the case of Metaclad Industries 2012 (11) TMI 244 - CESTAT MUMBAI , the Tribunal in para 5.4 and 5.5 has clearly held that the amendment made in the said Rule in 2009 is only for the purpose of removal of doubt and not for any other reason and the said clarification is applicable retrospectively - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 regarding availing excess credit from goods procured from an EOU
- Whether CVD in Rule 3(7) includes only basic excise duty or also cesses and special CVD
- Applicability of extended period of limitation
- Retrospective application of Notification No. 22/09 dated 7.9.2009

Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electrical parts, availed CENVAT credit for goods procured from an EOU. The department alleged excess credit availed and issued a show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to appeals. The consultant argued that the impugned order misinterpreted the CENVAT Credit Rules and ignored binding judicial precedents. The key issue was whether CVD in Rule 3(7) includes only basic excise duty or also cesses and special CVD. The consultant cited various decisions supporting the appellant's position, emphasizing retrospective application of Notification No. 22/09 dated 7.9.2009. The consultant highlighted that the appellant availed credit as per the supplier's invoice details, contending that Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules 2002 does not require specific calculation details.

CVD Inclusion and Extended Period of Limitation:
The consultant argued that previous decisions, like the case of HK Moulders, supported the appellant's claim that the entire additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 is eligible for CENVAT credit. The consultant emphasized that the impugned order wrongly disregarded the retrospective application of Notification No. 22/09. The consultant pointed out that the formula in Rule 3(7) did not differentiate between duties under different sections, supporting the appellant's case. The department's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Judicial Precedents and Ruling:
After reviewing submissions, records, and relevant provisions, the Judicial Member found the appellant's case aligned with cited decisions. Referring to the Metaclad Industries case, it was noted that the 2009 amendment to Rule 3(7) aimed to remove doubts and applied retrospectively. The ruling highlighted that additional duties paid under different sections were eligible for CENVAT credit, as per previous decisions. The Revenue's argument for restricting credit was rejected, and the impugned orders were set aside, allowing all appeals with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment showcases the interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the inclusion of CVD, the retrospective application of notifications, and the reliance on judicial precedents to support the appellant's case, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders.