2018 (9) TMI 245 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - reversal of credit on inputs which went into generation of exempted products - SCN alleges that they have not reversed the input service credit which has gone into production of several exempted products - Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Of these products, bagasse have already been held to be just waste and not an exempted product requiring reversal of CENVAT credit - There are also other products with respect to which the appellant claims that they have already reversed the CENVAT credit such as on electricity - There are products such as organic manure which the appellant claims to have cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the proper course of action is to remand the matter back to the original authority to examine the claims of the appellant in respect to each product and re-determine the amount of duty, if any, to be recovered from them after following principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal filed by Assessee regarding CENVAT credit on input services for dutiable and exempted products, Appeal filed by Revenue regarding demand of duty on exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involve a single issue of CENVAT credit availed by the Assessee on input services for both dutiable and exempted products. The Assessee reversed credit on inputs for exempted products but not on input services as required by Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Show cause notices were issued for recovery under Sec.11A of the Central Excise Act. The lower authority confirmed demands with interest and penalties. The Assessee contended they maintained separate accounts for each division and had already reversed credit on certain products. The Tribunal remanded the matter to re-determine the quantum of credit to be reversed after examining the Assessee's claims and judicial pronouncements.

2. The Revenue's appeal focused on the demand of duty on exempted goods under Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue alleged the first appellate authority wrongly demanded duty beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The Revenue sought modification of the Order-in-Appeal to demand duty proportionate to the value of exempted goods only. The Assessee agreed with this ground, leading to the appeal being allowed by remand to re-determine the quantum of irregularly availed input service credit.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments of both sides. It noted that certain products like bagasse had been held by the Supreme Court to be waste and not an exempted product requiring credit reversal. The Assessee claimed to have already reversed credit on products like electricity and organic manure cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the original authority to re-determine the amount of duty, if any, to be recovered, considering the Assessee's claims and relevant judicial pronouncements.

4. Ultimately, the appeals filed by both the Assessee and the Revenue were allowed by way of remand to the original authority for re-determining the quantum of irregularly availed input service credit. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment of the credit to be reversed by the Assessee, taking into account their contentions and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.