2019 (7) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of CENVAT Credit - export of inputs or capital goods, as such after availment of credit - Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - Since the legislature had intentionally included Section 51 to given an overriding effect to the SEZ Act, wherever it is inconsistent with any other law for the time being in force, the exemptions provided under Section 26(3) cannot be denied to a transfer of inputs in the DTA to a unit in the SEZ - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of CENVAT credit - Treatment of clearance to SEZ unit as export - Reversal of credit for export - Applicability of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules - Precedents cited - High Court judgment influence on present appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner(Appeals). The appellant, engaged in manufacturing components, availed CENVAT credit on capital goods, inputs, and input services. A show-cause notice was issued demanding a specific amount of credit along with interest and penalty. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who upheld the original order. The appellant contended that the clearance to SEZ unit should be treated as an export, citing various legal precedents to support the argument that reversal of credit is not required for exports as per Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules.

The appellant highlighted a similar case where the Tribunal had rejected the appeal, but the High Court of Kerala overturned the decision, setting a precedent in favor of the appellant. The appellant argued that since the High Court had ruled in their favor in a related matter, the present appeal should also be allowed. The learned AR defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal noted that the High Court's decision in the appellant's previous case had a significant impact. The High Court's findings emphasized that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit and that the demand for reversal of credit for inputs removed to an SEZ unit could not be sustained.

Based on the High Court's judgment and the settled issue in favor of the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal of the appellant with any consequential relief. The decision was pronounced in open court on a specific date. The influence of legal precedents, the interpretation of export treatment, and the applicability of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules were crucial aspects considered in the judgment, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant based on the High Court's ruling.