2017 (5) TMI 41 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 - maintenance of separate account of inputs / input services for manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted goods - demand on the ground that the intimation given under Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was given after April 2008 and hence the appellant had no option but to pay 10% of the amount pertaining to exempted goods - the appellant submits that the exercise of the option is procedural and hence the amendment can be applied retrospectively - Held that - This Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Ludhiana Beverages (P) Ltd 2016 (12) TMI 213 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH has held that once the cenvat credit attributable to exempted goods is reversed, that fulfills the requirements of Rule 6(3) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding maintaining separate accounts for inputs
- Retroactive application of amendments to procedural rules
- Applicability of case laws in the context of Cenvat Credit Rules

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing paper products, was required to maintain separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods. Failure to do so led to a demand for 10% of the value of exempted products. The appellant argued that the option to maintain separate accounts is procedural and can be applied retrospectively. Citing precedents like Foods, Fats and Fertilizers Ltd. case, the appellant contended that the amendment could have a retrospective effect, thereby justifying their actions of reversing Cenvat Credit for exempted goods.

2. Retroactive application of amendments: The Tribunal examined the retrospective application of the amendment to Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Referring to the Foods, Fats and Fertilizers Ltd. case, the Tribunal agreed that procedural changes can have retrospective effects. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the retrospective application of the amendment should absolve them from the penalty imposed for non-compliance with maintaining separate accounts.

3. Applicability of case laws: The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to exercise the option within the stipulated time frame and cited case laws like Texas Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. and Eagle Flask Industries Limited to support their argument against retrospective application. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases, emphasizing that they pertained to different contexts than the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal also referenced previous judgments, such as CCE vs. Ludhiana Beverages, to support the appellant's position that reversing Cenvat Credit for exempted goods fulfilled the requirements of Rule 6(3).

4. Final Decision: The Tribunal held that the appellant's compliance with reversing Cenvat Credit for exempted goods aligned with the requirements of Rule 6(3) and overturned the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, setting aside the previous decision and relieving the appellant from the penalty imposed.