2017 (11) TMI 282 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - N/N. 12/12-CE dated 17.03.2012 - Rule 6(6) of CCR 2004 - extended period of limitation - Held that - the law permits appellants not to reverse credit in respect of certain clearances. The clearances in respect of which reversal is not required are clearly specified under sub-rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The nature of clearance made under notification 12/12-C.E dated 17.03.2012 which are excluded from mischief of the said sub-rule are clearly specified in the said sub-rule itself. The clearance made by the appellants do not fall under this category - Though admittedly the ER-1 contained details of the value of the exempted goods cleared by the appellants still from that day it cannot be ascertained if the goods cleared under N/N. 12/12-C.E by the appellants in the instant case were hit by mischief of Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, since the exclusion from the mischief of Rule 6(6) is very specific. The appellants cannot claim that the facts that the goods were not related power projects was known to the revenue or they had disclosed the relevant fact to the revenue. In these circumstances, extended period has rightly been invoked. The appellants have sought to rely on the decision made with reference to Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - The sub-rule 6(6) deals with the excisable goods. A product is different from goods. A product is categorical where as goods are specified goods. While a product can be a class, goods are only specified goods. Thus while Rule 57CC was dealing with products the Rule 6(6) deals with excisable goods. Therefore for application of Rule 57CC the product has to be exempted. For application of Rule 6(6) the goods have to be exempted. In these circumstances, it is clear that the two rules are significantly different and therefore the provisions of Rule 57CC are not the same as Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of reversal of cenvat credit under notification 12/12-CE.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the exemption under Sr. No. 232 of notification 12/12-CE is conditional, not full, hence Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules doesn't apply. Cited cases where similar provisions were interpreted differently. Contended extended period and penalty were unjustified due to regular ER1 filings.

2. The respondent supported the impugned order, emphasizing the clear exemption under notification 12/12-CE for specified goods used for a specific purpose. Argued that the provisions of Rule 6 can be invoked due to the exemption, justifying the extended period and penalty imposition.

3. The judge noted the specific exclusion under Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules for certain clearances, which didn't apply to the appellant's case. Despite ER-1 filings, the specifics of the exempted goods weren't known, justifying the extended period invocation.

4. Regarding the appellant's reliance on Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, the judge differentiated it from Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, highlighting the distinction between products and goods. Concluded that the cited decisions weren't applicable to the current case.

5. Ultimately, the judge dismissed the appeal, noting the differences between Rule 57CC and Rule 6(6) and finding no merit in the appellant's arguments based on previous decisions related to Rule 57CC.

The judgment emphasizes the specific application of Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules to exempted goods, distinguishing it from Rule 57CC's treatment of exempted products. The decision underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of legal provisions to determine their applicability in specific cases, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.