2018 (11) TMI 418 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - recovery u/r 14 of CCR - inputs cleared as such in terms of Rule 3 (5) of the CCR 2004 - Held that - Rule 14 is applicable when cenvat credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded to the assessee. Admittedly, in this case at the time of procurement of inputs, the appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit, therefore, it is not a case that the appellant has taken cenvat credit wrongly. Further, from the facts of case and allegation of made in the show cause notice it is not coming out whether the said cenvat credit has been utilized by the appellant or not? Therefore, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for recovery of cenvat credit.
2. Interpretation of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding removal of inputs as such.
3. Examination of Notification No. 3/2013-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2013 and its impact on the recovery procedure.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order confirming a demand under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for clearing inputs without reversing cenvat credit under Rule 3(5). The appellant argued that during the relevant period, there was no mechanism for non-reversal of cenvat credit as per Rule 3(5), hence Rule 14 could not be invoked. The appellant contended that they were entitled to avail cenvat credit on the inputs and had not wrongly taken it. The Revenue failed to prove that the cenvat credit, which was alleged to be required for reversal, had been utilized for duty payment. The appellant cited precedents to support their case.

On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the insertion of Notification No. 3/2013-CE(NT) dated 01.03.2013 through explanation did not alter the substantial provisions of law. Relying on a Supreme Court decision, the Revenue maintained that the recovery procedure under Rule 14 was available despite the explanation being clarificatory. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined Rule 3(5) and Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. It noted that Rule 14 applies when cenvat credit is taken or utilized wrongly or erroneously refunded. Since the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit on the inputs, the Tribunal found Rule 14 inapplicable. There was no evidence that the cenvat credit in question had been wrongly utilized or refunded. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as Rule 14 was not applicable to the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was not applicable to the situation, rendering the proceedings unsustainable against the appellant. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief if necessary.