2017 (2) TMI 613 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - manufacture of Yeast classifiable under Tariff Item No. 21022000 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that - there is no co-relation of raw material and final product - there cannot be reversal of credit unless it is irregularly taken. The said SCN has not made any allegation in respect of credit except credit of ₹ 2,27,130/- that the credit was taken irregularly. Therefore, we find that Cenvat credit except ₹ 2,27,130/- was not liable to be recovered. Therefore, we hold that the impugned Order-in-Original is sustainable to the extent of denial of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 2,27,130/- and remaining part of the said order is set aside including penalty on the appellant - appeal partly allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods
- Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Application of the ruling by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Collector of Central Excise, Pune Versus Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd.

Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods:
The appellant, M/s Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow. The dispute revolved around the admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. The Revenue contended that certain Cenvat credits availed by the appellant were not admissible. A Show Cause Notice was issued to recover a significant amount from the appellant. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that the credits were availed for inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of dutiable final products, hence not subject to reversal. The Tribunal considered the contentions and ruled based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents.

2. Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant relied on Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, to support their claim that the credits availed on inputs and capital goods for dutiable products could not be reversed. They argued that the provisions allowed the credits to be utilized for dutiable products without any time limitation unless taken irregularly. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 6 and the arguments presented by both parties to determine the admissibility of the credits under the said rule.

3. Application of the ruling by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:
The Tribunal referred to a ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune Versus Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. The Supreme Court had emphasized that Cenvat credit could only be reversed if taken illegally or irregularly. The Tribunal applied this ruling to the case at hand and concluded that unless the credits were irregularly taken, they could not be recovered. The Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice did not establish irregularity in availing the credits except for a specific amount. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned order was sustainable only to the extent of denying a specific Cenvat credit amount, while setting aside the remaining part of the order, including the penalty imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods, interpreted Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and applied a relevant ruling by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to determine the legality of the credits availed by the appellant.