2016 (7) TMI 1112 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - assessee was reversing/paying an amount equal to 10% of the value of the exempted goods as provided under Rule 6 (3) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules. Department was of the view that appellant was using HR plates exclusively for manufacture of exempted goods and therefore contravened Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004 by availing credit on HR plates which were used for making exempted goods only. Held that - The Tribunal held that law provides choice for pay amount as per Rule 6(3) (b) when assessee not able to maintain separate account. - Demand is not sustainable - The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.

Summary

Issues:
Manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, CENVAT Credit on inputs, Contravention of Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004, Irregular credit availed on HR plates, Demand of amount, Interest, Penalty, Maintainance of separate accounts for inputs, Applicability of Rule 6 (3) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:

1. The appellants were manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods, availing CENVAT Credit on inputs. The Department alleged contravention of Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004 by availing credit on HR plates used exclusively for exempted goods. A show cause notice was issued demanding an amount for irregular credit along with interest and penalty.

2. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. The appellant contended that they used common inputs for both types of goods, paying 10% of the value of exempted goods as per Rule 6 (3) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules.

3. The Department argued that HR plates used for exempted pipes were identifiable separately, making the credit on these inputs ineligible. The appellant maintained that all inputs were used in manufacturing both types of pipes, challenging the Department's insistence on maintaining separate accounts.

4. The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to establish conclusively that HR plates were not common inputs. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that Rule 6 (3) (b) allows the option for payment when separate accounts cannot be maintained, rejecting the Department's stance on separate accounts.

5. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs. The appellant's compliance with Rule 6 (3) (b) and lack of evidence against common inputs led to the decision in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved, arguments presented by both sides, legal provisions applied, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.