2010 (1) TMI 433 - HC - Central Excise

Exemption Inputs used commonly in exempted as well as dutiable products, and separate accounts maintained for their use. Reversal of credit taken on exempted product, after deduction of its availment by department. Held that- mere fact of reversal of credit was sufficient compliance with condition of its non-availment. Denial of exemption set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the benefit of exemption notification can be granted when the condition was not initially fulfilled by the party and fulfilled only after being caught by the department?

Analysis:
The case involved the issue of whether the assessee, engaged in manufacturing PVC Pipes and Plastic storage tanks, was entitled to the benefit of exemption from excise duty on plastic storage tanks up to 300 liters capacity. The Central Excise Officers found an excess consumption of tanks above 300 liters capacity, alleging that the credit on inputs meant for non-exempted tanks was taken but not used in the manufacturing process. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the assessee's claim, leading to an appeal by the revenue. The core question was whether the assessee could avail the exemption for inputs used in manufacturing exempted products. The revenue argued that since the reversal of credit was done after detection by the Department, the assessee was not eligible for exemption.

The High Court analyzed the contentions and referred to relevant judgments, including one by the Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd.'s case. The Court emphasized that the assessee had maintained separate accounts for raw materials used in manufacturing exempted and non-exempted products and had already reversed the entire credit. The Court held that the mere reversal of credit was sufficient compliance to claim the exemption for inputs used in exempted goods. The Court highlighted a departmental circular allowing credit for inputs used in exempted products if the credit was debited before removal of such products. The Court concluded that the assessee was entitled to the exemption once the entire credit was reversed, ruling against the revenue's argument.

In light of the above reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee, having reversed the entire modvat credit, was entitled to the benefit of exemption. The legal question was answered against the revenue, and no costs were awarded in the case.