9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 781 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit taken on inputs used in respect of job-work cleared under full exemption, invoking Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - demands of duty were confirmed by both the lower authorities - revenue argued that the decision in case of Sterlite Industries was given while interpreting the MODVAT Rules, whereas the present dispute pertains to Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that - The issue has been finally decided by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune 2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) upheld by Hon ble Bombay High Court reported (2008 (8) TMI 783 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) While the decision in case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. has been given in respect of disputes which had arisen during the MODVAT regime, the same argument are equally applicable to the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is seen that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. (supra) relies on the spirit of the MODVAT Rules and no specific rules. The ratio of the said judgment is equally applicable to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Issues:
- Dispute over CENVAT Credit on inputs used in job-work cleared under full exemption - Interpretation of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Applicability of the decision in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Analysis: 1. Dispute over CENVAT Credit on inputs used in job-work cleared under full exemption: The case involved M/s MPI Paper Pvt. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing colored paper and paper-board, as well as providing job-work services involving calendaring, coating, and coloring of paper for other units. The company availed CENVAT Credit on inputs used for job-work cleared under full exemption. However, the Revenue disputed this credit claim, invoking Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Both lower authorities confirmed the duty demands, leading the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Interpretation of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: The appellant's counsel cited precedents, including the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd., where it was observed that Rule 3.57C prohibits taking credit for inputs used in the manufacture of a final product if the final product is exempted from excise duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the specific conditions required for Rule 57C to apply, such as the final product being exempted or chargeable to nil rate of duty. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the applicability of special procedures like Rule 57F(3) for duty payment scenarios between job workers and manufacturers. 3. Applicability of the decision in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: The Tribunal found that the decision in the Sterlite Industries Ltd. case, upheld by the Bombay High Court, was equally relevant to the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, despite the initial context being the MODVAT regime. The Tribunal noted that the spirit of the MODVAT Rules applied to the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, with the decision's ratio being applicable to the current case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment resolved the dispute by applying the principles established in the Sterlite Industries Ltd. case to the current scenario involving CENVAT Credit on inputs used in job-work cleared under full exemption, thereby providing clarity on the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
|
