2017 (11) TMI 819 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - N/N. 4/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 (as amended) - respondents had not reversed / repaid the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs held in stock and input contained in semi/finished goods on the date of the availment of exemption - Held that - Karnataka High Court in the case of TAFE Ltd. 2006 (11) TMI 48 - CESTAT, BANGALORE has categorically held that the appellant is not required to reverse the CENVAT credit taken on inputs lying in stock and contained in work in progress and finished goods as on the date of exemption - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order allowing Department's appeal by setting aside Order-in-Original due to availing full exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No.4/2006 without reversing CENVAT credit; Interpretation of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; Applicability of judicial precedents on reversal of CENVAT credit; Retrospective application of Rule 11(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order allowing the Department's appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Original due to the appellants availing full exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No.4/2006 without reversing the CENVAT credit. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which required the reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to inputs held in stock and input contained in semi/finished goods on the date of availing exemption. The appellant argued that the impugned order was contrary to binding judicial precedents, citing the case of TAFE Limited vs. CCE, Bangalore, which held that if final products initially dutiable were subsequently exempted, the credit taken when the final product was dutiable remains valid without any limitation in time. This decision was upheld by the High Court of Karnataka and the Supreme Court. Additionally, other decisions favoring the assessee were presented, such as CCE, Bangalore vs. Gokaldas Intimate Wear and Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. vs. Commissioner.

The appellant further contended that the provisions for reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 11(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 01/03/2007, could not be applied retrospectively. They relied on the Tribunal's decision in CCE, Nagpur vs. Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills to support this argument. On the other hand, the AR supported the findings of the impugned order, referencing the old provision requiring reversal of CENVAT credit if the final product became exempt. The appellant countered this by citing the Madras High Court and Karnataka High Court decisions disapproving the old provision and affirming that reversal of CENVAT credit on inputs in stock was not required on the date of exemption.

Ultimately, the Tribunal, following the precedents and arguments presented, concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant was allowed, setting aside the impugned order with any consequential reliefs.