2017 (12) TMI 1085 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - removal of capital goods to sister units - Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR - Held that - once the capital goods is cleared under Rule 4(5)(a) the same was supposed to be returned back within 180 days. If the assessee is not in a position to bring it back within 180 days they are supposed to reverse the cenvat credit availed on such capital goods - In the facts of the present case the removal of capital goods were taken place under Rule 4(5) (a) for the year 13.10.2006 and 4.4.2007. However the same was not returned back within 180 days the Cenvat credit was required to be reversed hence the appellants are failed to do so - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of cenvat credit on capital goods and failure to return within 180 days.
2. Applicability of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
3. Dispute regarding intention behind removal of capital goods.
4. Validity of demand for cenvat credit and penalties imposed.

Issue 1: Availment of cenvat credit on capital goods and failure to return within 180 days:
The case involved the appellants availing cenvat credit on capital goods, specifically cranes, and subsequently removing them to their Silvasa Unit under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, the capital goods were not returned within the stipulated 180 days. This led to a show cause notice being issued, demanding the reversal of cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, including personal penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, prompting the appellants to file appeals before the tribunal.

Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules:
The appellant argued that the removal of the capital goods was governed by Rule 3(5)(a) as Rule 4(5)(a) was not in existence at the relevant time. The appellant's representative cited several judgments to support this contention. However, the Revenue maintained that the removal was indeed under Rule 4(5)(a) and emphasized that the appellants could not change their stance post-removal. The tribunal examined the relevant rule and noted that the capital goods were required to be returned within 180 days, failing which the cenvat credit had to be reversed. Since the appellants did not comply with this requirement, the demand for cenvat credit was deemed justified.

Issue 3: Dispute regarding intention behind removal of capital goods:
The appellant claimed that the removal of the capital goods was not intended for their return but for use by the Silvasa Unit. However, this argument was not accepted by the tribunal, which emphasized the necessity of complying with the rules regarding the return of capital goods within the specified timeframe. The tribunal found that the appellants were aware of the requirement to reverse the cenvat credit if the goods were not returned within 180 days, yet failed to do so.

Issue 4: Validity of demand for cenvat credit and penalties imposed:
After considering the submissions from both sides, the tribunal upheld the demand for cenvat credit and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. The tribunal concluded that the removal of capital goods under Rule 4(5)(a) necessitated their return within 180 days or the reversal of cenvat credit. Since the appellants did not adhere to this requirement, the demand was deemed valid. The tribunal dismissed the appeals, citing that the judgments relied upon by the appellant were not applicable to the present case due to the specific rule under which the capital goods were removed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the tribunal's findings, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal decision.