2016 (7) TMI 430 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - input services used for export of goods - reversal of proportionate cenvat credit relating to exempted goods cleared every month as mandated under Rule 6 (3A) and Rule 6 (3) (ii) of CCR - but they had reversed only part amount during the period from April 2011 to September 2011, rendering a short reversal of proportional input service credit - Held that - The fact that the export of yarn has been made and the same is not disputed goes to show that the appellant is eligible for cenvat credit. The policy of the government is not to burden the goods to be exported with domestic taxes as has been observed in various decisions of the Tribunal. The reasons are obvious. Generally, it is not intended to make domestically produced goods, when exported to the foreign market, to become uncompetitive by means of increasing its cost. The view that exports should not be burdened is a consistent view taken by various Tribunal and I find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, credit is eligible and no reversal of credit is warranted. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Proportionate cenvat credit reversal for exempted goods clearance under CCR 2004 - Rule 6(3A) and Rule 6(3)(ii) | Applicability of Rule 6(5) of CCR for credit on services pre-1.4.2011 | Liability for excess credit reversal and recredit under Rule 6(3A)(f) | Invocation of extended period for duty evasion | Verification of facts for remand by original authority.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the proportionate cenvat credit reversal for exempted goods clearance under CCR 2004, specifically under Rule 6(3A) and Rule 6(3)(ii). The appellant, engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn, was accused of not properly reversing the cenvat credit relating to exempted goods cleared, resulting in a short reversal of input service credit. The dispute centered on whether the appellant had used common input services for both dutiable and exempted activities, thus necessitating the credit reversal. The Revenue issued a show cause notice proposing recovery of the amount in question, along with interest and penalties, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant contended that certain services, like courier services and commission agency services used exclusively for export, were eligible for 100% credit and not subject to the proportionate credit reversal. They argued that the services used solely for dutiable activities should not be included in the reversal calculation. Additionally, they claimed full credit on various services utilized, highlighting their eligibility under Rule 6(5) of CCR, especially for services received pre-1.4.2011. The appellant also disputed the liability for excess credit reversal and recredit under Rule 6(3A)(f), asserting that it pertained to a different period and service.

The Revenue argued that although the appellants were entitled to credit pre-1.4.2011, the delayed availing of such credit made Rule 6(5) applicable. They sought a remand to the original authority for further verification of facts to determine the applicability of the rules. The appellant countered by stating that export-related services did not fall under Rule 6(5) of CCR, emphasizing the distinct nature of services used for export activities.

Upon review, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original, ruling in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the services under dispute were exclusively used for exporting yarn on which duty had been paid, making the appellant eligible for cenvat credit. Emphasizing the government's policy not to burden exported goods with domestic taxes, the Tribunal highlighted the competitiveness of domestically produced goods in foreign markets. The decision emphasized that credit availed for exported goods was undisputed, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order.