2017 (10) TMI 1042 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - manufacture of exempted and dutiable goods - non-maintenance of separate set of books - Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that - the appellant is availing proportionate credit on input/input services used in manufacturing of dutiable final goods. In that circumstance, when the appellant is availing proportionate credit on input/input services used in the manufacture of dutiable goods, the question of reversal of Cenvat credit does not arise - credit remains allowed. Penalty - CENVAT credit - malafide intent - Held that - appellant has paid demand along with interest and since the sister unit was otherwise entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the said invoice. In that circumstance, the intent of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit with mala-fide is missing - penalty not imposed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of Cenvat credit on proportionate basis for input/input services used in final exempted goods.
2. Admissibility of Cenvat credit availed on invoices in the name of another unit.
3. Imposition of penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reversal of Cenvat credit on proportionate basis for input/input services used in final exempted goods
The appellant was found availing Cenvat credit on input/input services without reversing it for final exempted goods, as required by Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that they had taken proportionate credit on input/input services used in manufacturing dutiable goods, and hence, the reversal of Cenvat credit was not necessary. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that since the appellant was already availing proportionate credit on input/input services used in the manufacture of dutiable goods, there was no need for the reversal of Cenvat credit for exempted goods. Consequently, the demand for reversal of Cenvat credit was deemed unsustainable.

Issue 2: Admissibility of Cenvat credit availed on invoices in the name of another unit
The appellant had availed Cenvat credit of ?7,453 on invoices in the name of their sister unit, which was deemed inadmissible. However, the appellant rectified the error by reversing the Cenvat credit along with interest upon being notified. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's action was inadvertent, and there was no malicious intent to avail Cenvat credit improperly. As the sister unit was entitled to avail the credit on the said invoice, no penalty was imposed on the appellant for this mistake.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty
Considering the inadvertent nature of the appellant's mistake in availing Cenvat credit on invoices in the name of another unit, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty should be imposed on the appellant. The absence of any mala-fide intent in the appellant's actions led to the decision that penalty imposition was unwarranted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not required to reverse Cenvat credit as per Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and no penalty was imposed on the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant.