2015 (10) TMI 984 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - whether at the time of opting for area based exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE the appellant is required to reverse Cenvat Credit attributable to inputs / input contained in work-in-progress or finished good lying in their factory is required to reverse or not - Held that - at the time when appellant took Cenvat Credit on the inputs / capital goods their final product was dutiable and later on they opted for availing exemption under notification no. 50/2003. Therefore, they are not required to reverse Cenvat Credit on input / inputs contained in work-in-progress / finished goods lying in their factory. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of refund claim based on exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE
- Requirement to reverse Cenvat Credit on inputs/work-in-progress/finished goods upon opting for exemption

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the denial of a refund claim due to opting for an exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE, related to the reversal of Cenvat Credit.

2. The appellant, a manufacturer of electric bulbs, availed Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods. Upon opting for the exemption on 02.01.2006, the revenue claimed the appellant should reverse Cenvat Credit on inputs/work-in-progress/finished goods. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim based on the decision in Albert David Vs. CCE-2003. The appellant argued that the issue had different views within the Tribunal and cited the case of HMT Vs. CCE-2008, where it was held that reversal of Cenvat Credit is not required upon goods becoming exempt. The appellant also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Apco Pharma Ltd. Vs. CCE Meerut-I to support their case.

3. The appellant's counsel contended that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of HMT had settled the issue in their favor, stating that reversal of Cenvat Credit is not mandatory upon opting for exemption. The appellant further relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Apco Pharma Ltd., emphasizing that the Cenvat Credit need not be reversed in such cases.

4. The Revenue, represented by Ld. AR, supported the findings of the impugned order and referred to the decision in the case of Brook Bond Upton India Ltd. Vs. CER-2012.

5. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal considered the submissions and addressed the core issue of whether the appellant was required to reverse Cenvat Credit on inputs/work-in-progress/finished goods upon opting for area-based exemption under notification no. 50/2003-CE.

6. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand in Apco Pharma Ltd., emphasizing that Cenvat Credit taken on inputs is not required to be reversed if the final product becomes exempt from excise duty later. The Tribunal concluded that since the appellant initially took Cenvat Credit when the final product was dutiable, they are not obligated to reverse the credit upon opting for exemption.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing for consequential relief if applicable.