2018 (6) TMI 1408 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed - denial of benefit on the ground that the benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed and exemption granted, appellant having availed CENVAT credit on common input services is required to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods - Held that - Identical issue decided in appellant own case INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST VISAKHAPATNAM 2017 (9) TMI 500 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where reliance was placed in the case of DHARAMSI MORARJI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIGAD 2010 (3) TMI 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where the very same rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was invoked, where the Bench has held that the provisions of Rules are not attracted in case in hand where CT-3 certificate has been issued - reversal of CENVAT Credit not required - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Reversal of amount under Notification No. 82/84 for goods cleared to M/s Hindustan Shipyard Limited claiming exemption under Chapter X Procedure.

Analysis:

1. Common Question of Law: The appeals were directed against Orders-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-001-APP-177 & 178-17-18, dated 22.12.2017, as they raised a common question of law. The issue revolved around the reversal of an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of goods cleared to M/s Hindustan Shipyard Limited under Notification No. 82/84, claiming exemption under Chapter X Procedure.

2. Arguments and Findings: The appellant contended that since the purchasers followed the required procedures under Chapter X and produced CT-3 certificates, they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption. The Revenue argued that as the appellant availed CENVAT credit on common input services, they were obligated to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of goods cleared. The appellant cited previous favorable decisions in their case, emphasizing that the issue had been settled in their favor by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.

3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal noted that a previous order in favor of the appellant extensively reproduced the ratio of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd., which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai. The Tribunal held that since the issue had been settled in favor of the assessee by the High Court, the arguments presented by the Revenue were not sustainable. The Tribunal followed the various decisions in the appellant's own case and allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders.

4. Decision and Conclusion: Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the Orders-in-Appeal, emphasizing that the issue had been settled in favor of the appellant by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, and therefore, the reversal of the amount was not required.