2024 (3) TMI 66 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - though the tools and moulds purchased by them were continue in use for manufacture of excisable automobile components however same has been shown as sold on record on VAT-able invoice issued to M/s. Ford India Pvt. Limited - applicability of provisions of Rule 3(5A)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - From a plain reading of Rule 3(5A)(a), it can be seen that Cenvat credit is to be reversed only if the capital goods on which Cenvat credit has been availed by any assessee, have physically been removed - It is found from the entire proceedings that no evidence has been adduced by the department to prove that the tools and moulds which were purchased and used by the appellant have been physically removed from their factory of manufacture and therefore, since the tools and moulds were being used in manufacture of excisable goods it was wrong on the part of the department to ask for the payment of Central Excise duty on such tools and moulds that these are physically available in the appellant s manufacturing premises. Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. L.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND BROS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY 2016 (6) TMI 829 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that We note that the invoices issued did not contain the details of any removal, mode of transport, rate of duty, duty payable thereon, etc., as per the requirement of Rule 11(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. We also note that based on these invoices no credit can be availed by any buyer as these are not in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In view of settled legal position regarding need for physical removal of capital goods or inputs, in order to attract the provisions of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we find that there is no justification to invoke such provision to demand and recover any amount from the appellant in this case. Timpugned order-in-original is without any merit and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the availing of Cenvat credit on tools and moulds without paying Central Excise duty, the interpretation of Rule 3(5A)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the liability of the appellant to reverse the Cenvat credit.

Issue 1: Availing Cenvat credit without paying Central Excise duty:
The appellant, a manufacturer of motor-vehicle parts, availed Cenvat credit on tools and moulds purchased for M/s. Ford India Pvt. Limited without paying Central Excise duty. The department alleged that the appellant removed these tools and moulds without discharging the proper Central Excise duty. A show cause notice was issued demanding Central Excise duty, interest, and penalties. The impugned order confirmed all charges, leading the appellant to appeal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 3(5A)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant contended that they were entitled to avail Cenvat credit as the tools and moulds were not physically removed from their factory of manufacture. They argued that Rule 3(5A)(a) requires the reversal of Cenvat credit only upon physical removal of capital goods. The department failed to provide evidence of such removal, leading the Tribunal to find in favor of the appellant.

Issue 3: Liability to reverse Cenvat credit:
The Tribunal analyzed various decisions supporting the appellant's position, emphasizing the need for physical removal of capital goods to trigger the reversal of Cenvat credit. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order lacked merit, setting it aside and allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the impugned order-in-original lacked merit. The appellant was found entitled to avail Cenvat credit as the tools and moulds were not physically removed from their manufacturing premises, aligning with the provisions of Rule 3(5A)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.