2018 (5) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - trading activity - case of the department is that the sale of the steel sheets to the vendor is a trading activity - Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - though this removal of steel sheets is indeed a trading activity, but the said clearances were made on payment of excise duty. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an exempted service - Rule 6 applies on the trading activity only in a case when the goods are purchased and sold without taking credit and without payment of duty. In the present case, the removal of input under Rule 3(5) was made admittedly on payment of duty - there is no application of Rule 6(3) of the CCR 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding trading activity and payment of duty.
2. Applicability of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on removal of input with payment of excise duty.
3. Consideration of case law in support of appellant's position.
4. Analysis of the department's contention on the nature of clearances and exemption.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in the context of a dispute involving the appellant engaged in manufacturing bodies for motor vehicles and parts. The appellant availed cenvat credit on inputs and input services, including steel sheets sold to a vendor on payment of duty. The department contended that such sales constituted trading activity, hence attracting a demand under Rule 6(3) and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. The appellant challenged this before the Appellate Tribunal.

Regarding the first issue, the appellant argued that the removal of input under Rule 3(5) with payment of excise duty precluded the application of Rule 6(3). The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that Rule 6 applies to trading activity without credit or duty payment. Since the appellant cleared steel sheets on payment of duty, it did not qualify as exempted service under Rule 6. The judgment cited relevant case law supporting this interpretation, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on the distinction between trading activity and duty-paid clearances under Rule 3(5). The department's contention that the clearances were exempted services due to trading activity was rejected. The judgment underscored that trading without credit or duty payment triggers Rule 6, which was not the case here. By recognizing the duty payment on clearances, the Tribunal concluded that Rule 6(3) did not apply, leading to the allowance of the appeal against the demand and penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis clarified the application of Rule 6(3) in the context of duty-paid clearances, emphasizing the significance of payment in determining exempted services. The judgment's reliance on case law and careful consideration of the parties' submissions contributed to a clear and reasoned decision in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of compliance with excise duty regulations in trading activities to avoid incorrect demands and penalties.