2016 (8) TMI 624 - AT - Central Excise

8%/10% reversal of Cenvat Credit - value of electricity - provision of Rule 6(3)(b) - assessee had reversed Cenvat Credit on duty involved in respect of inputs used in the generation of electricity and the lower appellate authority granted relief to the assessee - Held that - the issue stands covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur Versus M/s Godawari Power And Ispat Ltd. 2016 (2) TMI 863 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Therefore, by following the same the present appeal of the Revenue is rejected. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over 8% / 10% reversal of Cenvat Credit on the value of electricity in terms of Rule 6(3)(b).

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) regarding the reversal of Cenvat Credit on the value of electricity. The lower appellate authority had granted relief to the assessee, which led to the Revenue challenging this decision. The core issue revolved around whether the assessee was liable to pay 8% or 10% of the value of electricity cleared outside in accordance with Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It was noted that the respondent had already reversed the Cenvat Credit on duty related to inputs used in generating electricity. The Tribunal referred to a previous appeal involving the same issue and the decision therein, emphasizing that the respondent had not taken any undue benefit and had complied with the provisions by reversing the credit attributable to the electricity cleared outside. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing precedents and established principles regarding the reversal of credit in such situations.

The Tribunal highlighted that the reasoning in the impugned order, stating electricity as a non-excisable commodity, was not sustainable based on higher court decisions. However, the final outcome of the impugned order was deemed appropriate. The advocate for the respondent presented a certificate from the Superintendent accepting the reversal of proportionate Cenvat credit, further solidifying the position that the disputed issue was already settled by a previous Tribunal decision. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the present appeal by the Revenue, maintaining consistency with the earlier ruling and upholding the respondent's compliance with the relevant provisions.

This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to Cenvat Credit Rules and the proper reversal of credits in cases involving the generation and clearance of electricity. It also highlights the significance of precedent and established legal principles in resolving disputes related to tax credits and duty liabilities in the realm of indirect taxation.