2018 (1) TMI 1262 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - electricity sold outside the factory - Rule 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - maintenance of separate accounts - Held that - the electricity is not an item for which any particular rate of duty is fixed in the Tariff Act, none can be criticized for not having raised the issue of maintaining separate accounts either before the first appellate authority. The original order and its preceding notice of proposal including as to penalty, were not dealt with, or based on any issue relating to non-maintenance of separate accounts - The fact of the matter remains that maintaining of separate accounts as was sought to be raised did not impress the CESTAT, having regard to the quality of the findings it rendered on the facts articularly when the quantification of the electricity sold out by the respondent was an admitted situation as far as the authority which generated the original order and the first appellate authority are concerned - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding recovery of value of electricity sold outside the factory.
2. Application of retrospective amendment of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.
3. Jurisdiction of CESTAT to go beyond statutory provisions.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case was whether the CESTAT's decision regarding the recovery of the value of electricity sold outside the factory was legally correct. The appellant argued that the respondent failed to follow the procedure under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, specifically regarding maintaining separate inventory of inputs and input services for dutiable and exempted goods. The appellant contended that there was no evidence to support the respondent's claim of reversing the attributable credit for inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods. However, the CESTAT, based on admitted factual premises, found no grounds to criticize the respondent for not maintaining separate accounts. The CESTAT's decision was based on the quantification of electricity sold by the respondent, which was considered an admitted fact by the appellate authorities. As a result, the CESTAT's decision was upheld, and it was concluded that no substantial question of law arose for decision in this appeal.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the application of the retrospective amendment of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant questioned the CESTAT's decision to extend the benefit of the retrospective amendment despite the respondent not filing the necessary option or providing the required certificate from a Cost Accountant or Chartered Accountant. The CESTAT's decision was based on the absence of any objection raised by the Department regarding the non-maintenance of separate accounts during the appeal process. The CESTAT considered this issue a mixed question of facts and law, which it resolved based on the materials on record. Ultimately, the CESTAT's decision was upheld, and the appeal failed on this ground as well.

Issue 3:
The final issue raised was whether the CESTAT, as a statutory body, had the authority to go beyond the statutory provisions of the law. The judgment did not delve deeply into this issue, but it can be inferred that the CESTAT's decision was found to be within the scope of its statutory powers. The judgment did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue but concluded that the appeal was dismissed, indicating that the CESTAT's actions were deemed appropriate within the legal framework.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the CESTAT's decision on all the issues raised in the appeal, emphasizing the importance of factual findings and adherence to legal procedures under the Cenvat Credit Rules.