2018 (3) TMI 827 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Since both the units are entirely different whatever records were being maintained by the Party in the name of separate records was just an attempt to hoodwink the Department. In the above circumstances the correlation for separate account was not possible in terms of the Rule. The condition of maintaining separate account has not been met in the facts and circumstances of the present case - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against impugned order regarding demand for exempted goods, separate account maintenance under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, ALLAHABAD involved a case where the Revenue challenged an order demanding payment for exempted goods due to the lack of maintaining separate accounts as per Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue revolved around the respondent not maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods. The Commissioner initially held that no payment was due till December 2007 as no exempted goods were manufactured. For subsequent periods, the Commissioner found that the respondent did maintain separate accounts and dropped the charges. The Revenue appealed on the grounds that the records maintained were insufficient to meet the requirement of separate accounts under Rule 6.

The Revenue contended that the units of raw material and finished goods were different, making it impossible to establish a clear correlation between inputs and finished goods. They argued that the respondent's attempt to maintain separate records was merely to deceive the Department and did not meet the conditions of maintaining separate accounts as required by the Rule. The Revenue highlighted statements from the party's authorized signatory regarding the correlation between inputs and finished goods, claiming it was a mechanism used to evade payment without a valid basis.

Upon reviewing the grounds raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal found no reason to overturn the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal lacked merit, and therefore, dismissed the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining separate accounts as per Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing the need for a genuine correlation between inputs and finished goods to prevent undue benefits on exempted goods.