2020 (9) TMI 787 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of proportionate Cenvat credit - common input/input services used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - The issue arising out of the present dispute regarding determination and payment of amount as per the formula prescribed under sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 ibid is no more open for any debate in view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, RAJKOT VERSUS M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2019 (3) TMI 784 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Reversal of proportionate Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The dispute revolves around the reversal of Cenvat credit, with the department arguing for the reversal of total credit available in the books, contrary to the appellant's claim of attributing credit to input/input services used for dutiable goods. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the appellant's case, establishing that total Cenvat credit for the formula under Rule 6(3A) includes only common input service credit, not credit exclusively used for dutiable goods. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 6 allows credit for input/input services used in dutiable goods, and the Revenue's interpretation would disallow credit for such inputs, which is not supported by the rules.

An amendment in Rule 6(3A) by Notification No. 13/2016 clarified the determination of the amount to be paid under the rule. The amendment aimed to provide a clarificatory nature to the provision, making it applicable retrospectively. The intention was not to deny Cenvat credit on input/input services used in dutiable goods. The Tribunal highlighted that the substitution in sub-rule (3A) should have a retrospective effect, as it aligns with the legislative intent to allow credit for inputs used in dutiable goods.

In light of the settled legal position, the Tribunal found no merit in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant. The cross objection filed by the Revenue was accordingly disposed of. The judgment reaffirmed that Cenvat credit for input/input services used in the manufacture of dutiable goods should not be disallowed, as the rules permit such credit and the legislative intent supports the retrospective application of the amended sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant rules and the legislative intent behind the amendment, ensuring clarity on the attribution and reversal of Cenvat credit in the context of dutiable goods.