2025 (1) TMI 1092 - AT - Central Excise

Failure to pay/reverse the amount of credit availed on input services used in the manufacture of exempted goods - HELD THAT - This Tribunal finds that a division bench of this Tribunal in the case of SIVARAJ SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE MADURAI 2024 (8) TMI 990 - CESTAT CHENNAI in a similar fact situation of the appellant therein clearing cotton yarn on payment of duty under Notification No. 29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 and clearing cotton yarn at nil rate as per Notification No. 30/2004 CE dated 09.07.2004 simultaneously after discussions has rendered the decision in favour of the appellant therein holding the credit availed on input services is eligible and the contention of the Department that the credit has to be reversed is against the provisions of law. Conclusion - The goods exported under bond are exempt from the reversal of CENVAT credit and that CENVAT credit can be availed on input services used in the manufacture of such goods. The impugned order in appeal is hence set aside. The appeal is allowed.

2024 (8) TMI 1207 - AT

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the appellant is required to include the value of exempted goods exported under bond while calculating the reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Whether the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on input services used in the manufacture of goods exported under exemption.
Whether the imposition of interest and penalties on the appellant for the alleged wrongful availment of CENVAT credit is justified.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Inclusion of Exported Goods in Credit Reversal Calculation

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The main legal provisions involved are Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which provides the formula for calculating the reversal of credit, and Rule 6(6)(v) which exempts exported goods from the reversal requirement. The Tribunal relied on precedents such as the case of Sivaraj Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd and Sri Velayuthaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted Rule 6(6)(v) to mean that goods exported under bond are not subject to the reversal of CENVAT credit, as the rule explicitly exempts such goods.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant had not included the value of exported goods while calculating the reversal of credit, arguing that these goods are exempt under Rule 6(6)(v).
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the appellant correctly excluded the value of exported goods from the reversal calculation, as these goods were exported under bond and thus exempt from the reversal requirement.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's argument that the appellant should include the value of exported goods in the reversal calculation was dismissed based on the clear exemption provided by Rule 6(6)(v).
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not required to include the value of exported goods in the reversal calculation.

Issue 2: Entitlement to CENVAT Credit on Exported Goods

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to Rule 6(6)(v) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and precedents such as Repro India Ltd and Drish Shoes Ltd which supported the entitlement to credit on exported goods.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on input services used in the manufacture of goods exported under exemption, as Rule 6(6)(v) provides a clear exemption for such goods.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant had availed CENVAT credit on input services used for both dutiable and exempted goods, which were exported.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the exemption under Rule 6(6)(v) to the appellant's case, allowing them to avail credit on inputs used for exported goods.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's contention that credit should be reversed for exempted goods was rejected, as the exemption for exported goods was clear and well-established in precedent.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on input services used in the manufacture of exported goods.

Issue 3: Imposition of Interest and Penalties

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The provisions for interest and penalties are found in Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal considered precedents that addressed the imposition of penalties.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that since the demand for reversal of credit was unsustainable, the imposition of interest and penalties was also unjustified.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant argued that there was no willful suppression or misdeclaration, and the issue was purely interpretational.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principle that penalties cannot be imposed when the primary demand is unsustainable.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's justification for penalties was dismissed due to the interpretational nature of the issue and the lack of willful suppression.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the imposition of interest and penalties was not warranted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002."
Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that goods exported under bond are exempt from the reversal of CENVAT credit and that CENVAT credit can be availed on input services used in the manufacture of such goods.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, confirming that the appellant was not required to reverse CENVAT credit on exported goods and that the imposition of interest and penalties was unjustified.

← Previous