2022 (11) TMI 40 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - common inputs used in manufacture of taxable as well as exempt goods - demand @ 8% of the value of exempted goods proposed in terms of Rule 57 AD(2)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1994 and and rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and 2004 - HELD THAT - The provision of erstwhile Rule 57 AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 clearly stipulates that the cenvat credit in respect of input used in the manufacture of exempted final product is not admissible. It is also found that the entire objective of allowing the cenvat credit is to avoid the cascading effect of duty on the final product. When the final product is not dutiable, there is no reason to allow the cenvat credit on the inputs used in such final products. Therefore, the adjudication order is absolutely proper and legal, which does not require any interference. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of cenvat credit on common inputs used in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted products
2. Validity of show cause notice proposing demand of 8% of the value of exempted goods
3. Applicability of Rule 6 options to the assessee's choice

Analysis:

1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing dutiable and exempted products, availed cenvat credit for common inputs. A show cause notice proposed a demand of 8% of the value of exempted goods. However, the adjudication order confirmed the demand limited to cenvat credit attributable to common inputs. The Tribunal noted that under Rule 57 AD of Central Excise Rules and Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, cenvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing exempted final products is inadmissible. The purpose of cenvat credit is to prevent duty cascading on final products. Therefore, allowing cenvat credit on inputs for non-dutiable final products is unwarranted. The Tribunal deemed the adjudication order legally sound and declined to interfere.

2. The appellant argued that the departmental authority cannot dictate the option under Rule 6, contending the show cause notice's sustainability. However, the Tribunal upheld the order, emphasizing the clear provisions of cenvat credit Rules. It distinguished the appellant's reliance on judgments passed in writ petitions, highlighting the clarity of the cenvat credit Rules. Additionally, the Tribunal cited various high court and Supreme Court judgments affirming the reversal of cenvat credit for exempted goods. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order was legal and correct, devoid of any defects, and dismissed the appeal.

3. The Tribunal's analysis underscored the inadmissibility of cenvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing exempted final products, aligning with Rule provisions. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument regarding the show cause notice's sustainability and emphasized the legal clarity of cenvat credit Rules. By referencing relevant judgments, the Tribunal reinforced the established practice of reversing cenvat credit for exempted goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order as lawful and appropriate, without requiring any modifications.