2017 (5) TMI 1334 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - common Input Services used both for manufacturing and trading activities - whether proportionate Cenvat Credit on the Input Services that had been used for trading activities is required to be reversed? - Held that - There is no dispute of the fact that the appellant had reversed proportionate credit supported by Chartered Accountant s certificate dt 03.5.2017 - before the authorities below they have already claimed about such reversal of credit being not considered, at this stage remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of the evidences would not serve the purpose. Considering the Chartered Accountant s certificate and the fact that earlier, the appellant claimed proportionate reversal of credit on Common Input Service used in trading services, in my opinion, imposition of penalty is not warranted. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Availing Cenvat Credit on common 'Input Services' for manufacturing and trading activities
- Dispute over imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sec. 11AC of CEA, 1944

Analysis:

Issue 1: Availing Cenvat Credit on common 'Input Services' for manufacturing and trading activities
The appellant availed Cenvat Credit on common 'Input Services' used for both manufacturing and trading activities. The demand notices were issued for recovery of the credit availed on 'Input Services' used in trading activities. The appellant argued that they had already reversed proportionate credit on the common 'Input Services' before the notices were issued. The appellant submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate and detailed workings to support their claim of reversing further credit on trading activities. The appellant contended that there was no malafide intention in availing the credit, as the issue of availing Cenvat Credit on common 'Input Services' for both manufacturing and trading activities had been a point of dispute between the trade and revenue. The appellate authority found that the appellant had indeed reversed proportionate credit on the common 'Input Services' and that there was no certainty in the law at the time of availing the credit. Therefore, the imposition of penalty was deemed unwarranted, and the impugned orders were modified accordingly.

Issue 2: Dispute over imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sec. 11AC of CEA, 1944
The Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that the correct computation of proportionate credit on common 'Input Services' could not be carried out as the Chartered Accountant's certificate was not available before the lower authorities. However, the appellate authority considered the appellant's submission, the Chartered Accountant's certificate, and the fact that the appellant had already claimed the reversal of credit on common 'Input Services' used in trading activities. The authority concluded that there was no need to remand the case for further verification, as the evidence provided was sufficient to support the appellant's claim. Consequently, the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sec. 11AC of CEA, 1944 was deemed unjustified, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Conclusion:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the issues related to availing Cenvat Credit on common 'Input Services' for manufacturing and trading activities and the dispute over the imposition of a penalty under the relevant rules. The authority found in favor of the appellant, considering the evidence provided and the lack of certainty in the law at the time of availing the credit. The imposition of the penalty was deemed unwarranted, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.