2017 (5) TMI 500 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - non-maintenance of separate records for inputs used in exempted and dutiable goods - demand of 10% of exempted goods - Held that - when the appellant has already reversed the Cenvat Credit on input/input services attributable to final exempted goods, they are not required to pay 10% of value of exempted goods. The approach adopted by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is in accordance with law and the services for which statutory records were not required to be maintained have been correctly pointed out by the First Appellate Authority. We do not find any infirmity in the methodology adopted by the Commissioner to satisfy about the input services used for dutiable goods. Re-credit of amount - Held that - The genesis of this SCN is that pending the investigation in SCN dt. 06.09.2005, the appellants had voluntarily debited ₹ 9,37,988/-. Later on they took back the credit of 9,15,714/- as they felt that they were entitled for the input service credit. Since, the dropping of proceedings pertaining to SCN dt. 06.09.2005 is u pheld, the issue relating to re-credit of ₹ 9,15,714/- raised in the SCN dt. 07.04.2006 also does not survive. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Cenvat credit on input services for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods
- Requirement of maintaining separate records for input services
- Demand raised by the Revenue in show cause notices
- Admissibility of Cenvat credit on various services
- Legal validity of orders passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
1. Cenvat Credit on Input Services: The appeals revolve around the Cenvat credit availed by the appellants for various input services used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods. The Revenue contended that the appellants took inadmissible Cenvat credit, leading to demands in multiple show cause notices.

2. Separate Records Requirement: The central allegation was that the appellants failed to maintain separate records for input services used in the production of dutiable and exempted final products. This failure was cited as the basis for demanding payment equal to 10% of the value of exempted goods, as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

3. Revenue's Demands: The Revenue raised substantial demands in the show cause notices, totaling to significant amounts. The demands were based on the alleged inadmissible Cenvat credit taken by the appellants due to the absence of separate records for input services.

4. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit: The ld. A.R. argued that the appellants were not required to maintain separate accounts for input services, emphasizing that the exempted goods did not fall under the specified category. Reference was made to a Board Circular to support the contention regarding the reversal of credit.

5. Validity of Orders: The ld. Advocate supported the orders passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), asserting their legality and correctness. The orders had addressed the demands and findings in a manner deemed appropriate and legally sound.

6. Judicial Findings: The Tribunal analyzed the orders of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in detail. The findings were summarized, highlighting the dropping of certain demands based on the maintenance of separate records and the admissibility of credit for specific services used exclusively for dutiable goods.

7. Final Decision: After examining the contentions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal upheld the approach adopted by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The methodology used to determine input services for dutiable goods was deemed lawful. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, affirming the decisions of the lower authority.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the core issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the Cenvat credit, record-keeping requirements, demands raised, admissibility of credit, and the legal validity of the orders passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).