9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 848 - AT - Central ExciseShort reversal of CENVAT Credit - manufacture and sale of dutiable goods and Trading which is an exempted service - Rule 6(3A) of the CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT - The impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, the same is set aside by allowing the appeals on merits. Non-filing of intimation - HELD THAT - Non-filing of intimation is only a procedural lapse and does not amount to suppression of fact for which the benefit provided under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) of CCR cannot be denied. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - There is no suppression of material fact on the part of the appellant with intention to evade payment of duty and non-filing of intimation is only a procedural lapse and does not amount to suppression of fact for which benefit under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Short reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3)(iii) of CCR, 2004; Interpretation of provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004; Applicability of extended period of limitation; Non-filing of intimation regarding option exercised for reversing proportionate CENVAT credit. Analysis: Short Reversal of CENVAT Credit under Rule 6(3)(iii) of CCR, 2004: The case involved the appellant engaged in manufacturing electronic products and trading activities. The issue was regarding the short reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3)(iii) of CCR, 2004. The appellant was utilizing common input services for both taxable goods and exempted services but had not maintained separate inventory of input services as required by Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004. The demand was raised for the short reversal of CENVAT credit, and the impugned order confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. The appellant argued that the total CENVAT credit for the purpose of reversal should only include common input services, not all input services. CESTAT referred to a similar case and held that the total CENVAT credit for the formula under Rule 6(3A) should only consider common input services, not all input services used for manufacturing dutiable goods. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed on merits. Interpretation of Provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004: The Tribunal analyzed Rule 6 in its entirety along with subsequent amendments. It emphasized that the interpretation of "total CENVAT credit" for the formula under Rule 6(3A) should only include total CENVAT credit of common input services, not all input services. The legislative intent was clarified through a retrospective amendment to ensure CENVAT credit on input services used in dutiable goods is not disallowed. This interpretation guided the decision to set aside the impugned order. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation: The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked as there was no suppression of material facts to evade duty. The non-filing of intimation regarding the option exercised for reversing proportionate CENVAT credit was considered a procedural lapse, not suppression of facts. The Tribunal agreed that there was no suppression of material facts and that the benefit under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) could not be denied. Consequently, the appeals were allowed on merits, and the question of limitation was not addressed. Non-filing of Intimation Regarding Option Exercised for Reversing Proportionate CENVAT Credit: The Tribunal held that non-filing of intimation regarding the option exercised for reversing proportionate CENVAT credit was a procedural lapse. The information was available with the department through periodical returns, and the benefit under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3A) could not be denied based on this procedural lapse. The settled legal position supported the appellant's argument, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals on merits, following the legal interpretation established in a similar case and considering the absence of material suppression or evasion of duty. The impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief was granted to the appellant.
|
