2018 (8) TMI 80 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods destroyed by fire - Rule 3(5C) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - The rule reveals that CENVAT credit used in the manufacture of the finished goods is required to be reversed on remission of the duty allowed on the finished goods destroyed in fire - In the present case, demand is confirmed for recovery of credit on capital goods, on destruction of the said capital goods in fire, inside the factory, which is not prescribed under the said provisions - demand not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming recovery of CENVAT credit on destroyed capital goods under Rule 3(5C) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Recovery of CENVAT credit on destroyed capital goods
The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the recovery of CENVAT credit on capital goods destroyed in a fire in their factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the recovery of credit amounting to ?1,35,960/- with interest and penalty. The appellant contended that Rule 3(5C) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, is applicable only to finished goods destroyed in fire where remission of duty has been applied for. The appellant argued that demanding credit on capital goods destroyed in fire goes against the provisions of the said rule and is legally unsustainable.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 3(5C) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
The key contention revolved around the interpretation of Rule 3(5C) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The rule specifies that CENVAT credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods must be reversed if duty is remitted on the finished goods destroyed in fire. The Tribunal analyzed the rule and concluded that the demand for recovery of credit on capital goods, destroyed in the fire within the factory premises, was not in line with the provisions of Rule 3(5C). The Tribunal emphasized that the rule specifically addresses the remission of duty on finished goods and does not extend to capital goods. Therefore, the recovery of credit on capital goods in this case was deemed unsustainable in law.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent that it confirmed the demand for CENVAT credit of ?1,35,960/- on the destroyed capital goods. The order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in determining the recoverability of credit in cases of goods destroyed in fire.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the recovery of CENVAT credit on destroyed capital goods under Rule 3(5C) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.