2019 (12) TMI 604 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - common input services used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted product - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3) of CCR - HELD THAT - Though the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on common input service which is attributed to both dutiable manufacturing goods as well as the trading activity, but, after the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice the appellant have reversed Cenvat Credit along with the interest attributed to trading activity. With this fact the situation became as if no Cenvat Credit was taken right from the date of taking credit by the appellant. This tribunal in various cases held that once the Cenvat Credit along with interest has been paid, no demand of 6% can be made. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay 6% under Rule 6(3) for using common input service in trading turnover.
2. Whether the reversal of Cenvat Credit along with interest after the Show Cause Notice is in conformity with Rule 6(3A).
3. Application of judgments and legal precedents in determining the liability for payment under Rule 6(3).

Issue 1:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing dutiable and exempted products, availed Cenvat credit for input and input services, including common input services used in trading activity. The department contended that since the common input service was used in trading turnover, the appellant must pay 6% under Rule 6(3). The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the demand, leading to the appellant filing the present appeal.

Issue 2:
The appellant argued that they reversed the Cenvat Credit related to trading activity along with interest post the Show Cause Notice adjudication, complying with Rule 6(3A). Citing various judgments, including those of CESTAT Ahmedabad and the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that once the credit along with interest is paid, no 6% demand can be made.

Issue 3:
The tribunal analyzed precedents such as M/s. Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) LTD. v/s COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, NAGPUR and cases like M/s. Ashima Dyecot Ltd. and M/s. Maize Products to establish that reversal of credit, even after the appeal stage, suffices to negate the liability under Rule 6(3). The tribunal also differentiated the case of Lally Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that the appellant's reversal of credit and interest related to trading activity aligned with legal requirements, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the application of legal principles, precedents, and interpretations to resolve the issues raised in the case effectively.