2017 (3) TMI 1197 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - certain inputs are exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods - The case of the department is that Cenvat Credit is not admissible on the inputs which are used exclusively for exempted goods - penalty - Held that - at the time of taking credit, the entire facts was disclosed to the department. Moreover, the SCN was issued for the period of one year - In the Tribunal s order in the appellants own case 2014 (3) TMI 707 - CESTAT MUMBAI , the identical case was decided wherein the penalty imposed by the lower authority was completely waived - I do not find any suppression of facts on the part of the appellants. Therefore, the penalty imposed u/r 15 i.e. equivalent amount of penalty is not sustainable - demand of credit upheld - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs used exclusively for exempted goods.
Applicability of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs used exclusively for exempted goods:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed Cenvat Credit on inputs used exclusively for exempted goods. The department contended that Cenvat Credit is not admissible for inputs used solely in exempted goods production. The adjudicating authority denied Cenvat Credit of ?18,34,974 on such inputs, imposed interest, and a penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial. The appellant argued that they disclosed all facts to the department, citing judgments supporting their position. The Tribunal found no suppression of facts by the appellants, as evidenced by their detailed representations to the department. Relying on previous tribunal decisions, the penalty was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the demand for Cenvat Credit.

Issue 2: Applicability of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under Rule 15, arguing that the show-cause notice and order-in-original did not specify the sub-rule of Rule 15. They claimed that the penalty might fall under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15, which they were contesting. The appellant's counsel referred to their detailed representations to the department, highlighting the legality of the credit availed. The Assistant Commissioner for Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, concluded that the penalty was not sustainable due to the appellant's full disclosure of facts and previous tribunal decisions. The penalty was set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed, with the demand for Cenvat Credit being upheld.

This judgment clarifies the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs used exclusively for exempted goods and the applicability of penalties under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, emphasizing the importance of disclosing all relevant facts to the department and citing legal precedents to support claims.