2018 (6) TMI 1416 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004 - the main plank of the revenue is that the goods removed to EOU have been removed as such since the mixing of gases does not amount to manufacture and hence it requires reversal of credit - Held that - The goods even if cleared as such to 100% EOU against CT 3 certificate does not invite any reversal as removals are deemed export - Reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-II VERSUS M/S SOLECTRON CENTUM ELECTRONICS LTD. 2014 (10) TMI 596 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - appellant not liable to reverse any credit in terms of Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Availing cenvat credit on invoices of gases and mixing facility.
2. Contravention of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Notification No. 22/2003.
3. Liability to reverse credit on inputs removed for captive use.
4. Deemed export status of goods removed to 100% EOU.
5. Interpretation of judgments on the mixing of gases not amounting to manufacture.
6. Eligibility for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR.

Analysis:

1. The Appellant availed cenvat credit on invoices of Argon gas, Hydrogen gas, and LAR facility from M/s Prax Air (India) Pvt. Ltd. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 22/2003 for goods sent to their 100% EOU Unit. The issue arose when it was contended that the mixing of gases by the supplier did not result in manufacturing a new product, leading to the demand for reversal of credit on inputs removed for captive use.

2. The main contention revolved around the contravention of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the conditions of Notification No. 22/2003. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant argued that even if goods were removed as such to the 100% EOU, no credit reversal was necessary as it constituted a deemed export, citing relevant case law.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the precedents and held that removals to 100% EOU against CT-3 certificate did not require credit reversal, as it was deemed export. The judgment in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. was cited to support this view, emphasizing that the mixing of gases did not amount to manufacturing, aligning with the Appellant's stance.

4. The Tribunal further referenced judgments like CCE Vs. M.R.F. LTD. and BALA HANDLOOMS EXPORTS CO. LTD. Vs. CCE, CHENNAI to support the interpretation that goods cleared for export under bond did not necessitate credit reversal. The eligibility for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CCR was discussed, highlighting the Appellant's entitlement to the refund based on legal provisions and case law.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, stating that they were not liable to reverse any credit under Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, confirming the Appellant's position regarding the availed cenvat credit and the status of goods removed to the 100% EOU.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in the case and the thorough consideration given to each issue by the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →