2017 (9) TMI 1431 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - common input services for finished goods as well as trading activities - whether the appellant is required to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on three common input services which are utilized for discharging duty liability on the finished goods as well as for trading activities? - time limitation - Held that - even prior to 01.04.2011 trading activity has to be considered as exempted services is the law settled as on date; and even extended period can be invoked in such a situation wherein demands are raised. In view of this on the question of merits as also on limitation, the appeal fails. As regards computation of the demand on duty which has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority as 13, 62,622 which has been partly paid, the adjudicating authority should reconsider the computation based upon the explanation Rule 6(3D)(C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in its correct perspective and arrive at the exact amount that needs to be reversed by the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Whether appellant is required to reverse Cenvat credit on common input services used for both manufacturing and trading activities.
Calculation of proportionate credit to be reversed and dispute on limitation.
Applicability of trading activity as exempted service prior to 01.04.2011.
Method of calculation, limitation, and quantification of demand.

Analysis:
The appeal addressed whether the appellant must reverse Cenvat credit on common input services utilized for manufacturing and trading activities. The adjudicating authority confirmed demands raised in the show cause notice, requiring the appellant to reverse a specific amount of credit, imposing penalties and seeking interest. The appellant disputed the calculation of the demand and limitation, arguing for a lower amount to be reversed based on Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal considered precedents and the High Court judgment on trading activity as exempted service before 01.04.2011, ultimately upholding the demand calculation and rejecting the appeal on merits and limitation.

The Tribunal analyzed the law applicable to the issue, emphasizing that trading activity should be considered exempted services even before 01.04.2011. The plea of limitation was rejected as the appellant had not disclosed the credit on trading activities until verified by the Department. The judgment clarified that demands could be raised even for an extended period in such cases. The Tribunal upheld the denial of credit balance and affirmed that the plea of limitation was rightly rejected by the authorities below.

Regarding the computation of the confirmed duty demand, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider based on the Cenvat Credit Rules, remitting the matter for correct quantification. The authority was instructed to determine the exact amount to be reversed by the appellant, including interest liability and penalty considerations. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the order pronounced in open court.