2012 (10) TMI 141 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit on capital goods used in energy saving project - denial as the capital goods were used in the manufacture of exempted product (Ammonia) exclusively - Held that - To produce the desired end-product ammonia, the hydrogen is then catalytically reacted with nitrogen (derived from process air) to form anhydrous liquid ammonia. This step is known as the ammonia synthesis loop, thus, it can be seen that CO2 has been produced prior to, during and after the installation of energy saving device which was used for such production. A part of the production has been cleared on payment of Excise duty and therefore it cannot be said that the energy saving device installed in the factory was producing only the exempted goods - the demand for CENVAT Credit availed on the capital goods cannot be sustained - in favour of assessee. Taken credit twice on the basis of same document - Held that - As the appellants have not disputed this issue & in fact, have found much more double entries and have reversed them voluntarily. Under these circumstances, the penalty for availment of credit twice also cannot be justified - in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT Credit on capital goods used in energy-saving project.
2. Alleged double availment of CENVAT Credit on the same document.

Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT Credit on capital goods used in energy-saving project:

The appellant, a manufacturer of chemicals and fertilizers, claimed CENVAT Credit on capital goods used in an energy-saving project. The denial of the credit amounting to Rs.5,12,25,692/- was based on the argument that the capital goods were initially used in the manufacture of exempted products, specifically ammonia, before starting the production of ammonia for supply in the market on payment of Central Excise duty. Additionally, there was an allegation of double credit availed on the same document amounting to Rs.8,64,004/-. The impugned order demanded the availed CENVAT Credit with interest and imposed penalties equal to the wrongly claimed credit.

The appellant contended that the capital goods were not exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted products as they were also used in producing carbon dioxide, a by-product sold on payment of duty during the notice period. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued for eligibility for credit. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the capital goods were brought for the manufacture of ammonia, the primary product, and not for the by-product, carbon dioxide.

The Tribunal analyzed Rule 2 (h) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which defines final products as excisable goods manufactured from inputs or input services. The key issue was whether the restriction on CENVAT Credit for capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods applied only to the final product or all products manufactured by the assessee. Referring to a case law from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Tribunal supported the appellant's case, emphasizing that the machinery was used in the production of both ammonia and carbon dioxide. The production process of ammonia and carbon dioxide was detailed to demonstrate the simultaneous production of both substances, leading to the conclusion that the energy-saving device was not solely producing exempted goods.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for CENVAT Credit on the capital goods and the associated penalties.

Issue 2: Alleged double availment of CENVAT Credit on the same document:

Regarding the alleged double availment of CENVAT Credit on the same invoice, the appellant acknowledged it as a clerical error. Upon verification by Departmental officers and subsequent self-audit, the appellant voluntarily rectified multiple instances of double credits. The appellant's proactive approach in identifying and correcting the errors was highlighted, leading the Tribunal to conclude that no penalty should be imposed for the double entry of credit.

In light of the appellant's corrective actions and the absence of dispute regarding the double entries, the Tribunal held that the penalty for the double availment of credit could not be justified. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

---

← Previous Next →