2018 (6) TMI 177 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - Manufacture of exempt as well as dutiable goods - non-maintenance records - whether the appellant is required to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of their goods cleared by them as exempted under the provisions of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Tariff for manufacture of excisable Goods) Rules 2001? - Held that - Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs. UOI 2007 (1) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN has held that goods cleared under (the erstwhile) Chapter X procedure in terms of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 2001 are not to be considered as exempted goods and therefore, there is no need to reverse credit under Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - the said judgment was carried in SLP before the Apex Court which was dismissed in the case of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. 2014 (5) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT . There is no requirement for reversal of CENVAT credit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is required to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of goods cleared under CER 2001.
2. Liability to reverse credit of duty taken on inputs used in excisable goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the appellant must reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of goods cleared under the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Tariff for manufacture of excisable Goods) Rules 2001 (CER 2001). The appellant, a manufacturer of bulk drugs, cleared a dutiable bulk drug under CER 2001 without paying any duty. The adjudicating authority demanded the reversal of 6% of the value of such goods along with penalty and interest. The first appellate authority referred to a previous order by the Tribunal which held that goods cleared under CER 2001 are not exempted goods and thus, the duty credit need not be reversed. The appellate authority set aside the original order based on this precedent, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

2. The second issue pertains to the liability to reverse credit of duty taken on inputs used in excisable goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The appellant contended that the goods were cleared under CER 2001 and did not fall under the definition of 'exempted goods' as per CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellate authority, relying on a Final Order of the Tribunal and decisions from various cases, including judgments from the High Court and Tribunal, held that goods cleared under CER 2001 are not to be considered exempted goods. The authority set aside the original order, citing the Tribunal's Final Order and held that the demands were unsustainable.

In conclusion, the appellate authority upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal based on the findings that the goods cleared under CER 2001 are not exempted goods and thus, the appellant was not required to reverse the duty credit. The authority relied on previous Tribunal decisions and a judgment from the High Court to support this conclusion, providing relief to the appellant based on these legal precedents.