2014 (3) TMI 707 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Whether the appellant is required to reverse the input credit availed by them for manufacturing of excisable goods which became exempted later-on - Held that - when the input credit was taken by the appellant the final product was dutiable which became exempted later-on, therefore the appellant is not required to reverse the credit and the provisions came into effect from 01.03.2007 are not applicable retrospectively - Following decision of CCE Bangalore vs. Gokaldas Intimate Wear - 2011 (4) TMI 1123 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Reversal of input credit availed for manufacturing excisable goods later exempted.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Reversal of input credit availed for manufacturing excisable goods later exempted
The central issue in this case revolved around whether the appellant was obligated to reverse the input credit utilized for manufacturing excisable goods that were subsequently exempted. The Revenue contended that since the final product had become exempted, the appellant should not be entitled to retain the input credit used in manufacturing the exempted product. Consequently, proceedings were initiated, and demands were confirmed against the appellants. The appellant challenged this decision, leading to the present judgment.

The appellant's counsel argued that Rule 11(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 01.03.2007, as per Notification No. 10/2007 C.E., did not mandate the reversal of CENVAT Credit utilized for manufacturing a final product that later became exempted. To support this stance, reference was made to the case of CCE Bangalore vs. Gokaldas Intimate Wear (2011 (270) ELT 351 (Kar.)), covering the period from March 2003 to January 2004.

On the contrary, the learned Additional Commissioner contended that Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, prohibited the appellants from availing input credit on inputs used in the manufacture of an exempted final product, necessitating the reversal of the CENVAT credit.

After hearing both sides and evaluating the arguments presented, the judgment referred to the case of Gokaldas Intimate Wear, where the Karnataka High Court had ruled that if input credit was availed when the final product was dutiable but later became exempted, the appellant was not obligated to reverse the credit. Additionally, it was clarified that the provisions effective from 01.03.2007 did not apply retrospectively. Consequently, based on the precedent set by the aforementioned case, the appellants were not required to reverse the CENVAT credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a clear interpretation of the relevant rules and case law to determine the appellant's obligation regarding the reversal of input credit for manufacturing excisable goods that were subsequently exempted.