9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 841 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - slag - exempt goods - benefit of N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - It is the case of the department that in terms of section 5A(1A) manufacturers are barred to remove absolutely exempted goods on payment of duty and referring to the Board s Circular No.940/01/2011-CX dated 14.01.2011 - Period of dispute is from November 2009 to August 2014 - HELD THAT - Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE 2013 (12) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI and M/S NEULAND LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD- I 2013 (11) TMI 1339 - CESTAT BANGALORE . The Tribunal while dealing with the implication of Board s Circular dated 14.01.2011 held that there is no provision or Rule under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which puts an obligation on the receiver of goods to ascertain whether duty was payable on the said goods or not by the manufacturer supplier and then avail credit. Even a jurisdictional Central Excise officer at the manufacturers suppliers end may not be able to do the same as power of assessment has been taken away even from him. Board s Circular which has been issued without taking into consideration the implications of the provisions and the instructions, cannot be applied blindly for drawing adverse conclusion against the assessee. It was also held that merely on the strength of the said Circular dated 14.01.2011 Cenvat Credit cannot be denied, when there is no such provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on slag. 2. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE. 3. Validity of the recovery of Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty. 4. Interpretation of Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Relevance of Board’s Circular No. 940/01/2011-CX dated 14.01.2011. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Slag: The appellant, a manufacturer of MS ingots, claimed Cenvat credit on slag used as an input. The department contended that Cenvat credit on slag was inadmissible since slag was absolutely exempted under Exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. The Tribunal found that this issue was not res integra, referencing multiple decisions from the Tribunal, High Courts, and the Supreme Court which established that Cenvat credit cannot be denied if duty was paid on inputs, even if those inputs were exempt from duty. 2. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE: The department argued that under section 5A(1A), manufacturers are barred from removing absolutely exempted goods on payment of duty. However, the Tribunal noted that previous judgments, such as Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III, established that once duty was paid on inputs, Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the grounds that such inputs were not liable for duty. 3. Validity of the Recovery of Cenvat Credit along with Interest and Penalty: The adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat credit amounting to ?27,65,702/- and ordered its recovery along with interest and imposed a penalty of an equal amount under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal, however, found that the lower appellate authority's decision to uphold the order-in-original was incorrect, as established by the precedent cases which indicated that the recipient of goods is not required to determine whether the duty was payable on the inputs. 4. Interpretation of Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal referenced the case of Neuland Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad-I, which clarified that the receiver of goods is eligible to take Cenvat credit of duty paid and is not required to determine whether the duty was payable. This interpretation was crucial in setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) and section 11AC. 5. Relevance of Board’s Circular No. 940/01/2011-CX dated 14.01.2011: The department cited the Board’s Circular to argue that Cenvat credit should be recovered when duty was paid on exempted goods. However, the Tribunal, referencing the case of CCE, Chennai-I vs. CEGAT, Chennai, held that there is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, obligating the receiver of goods to ascertain whether duty was payable by the manufacturer supplier. The Tribunal concluded that the Board’s Circular cannot be applied blindly to deny Cenvat credit. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by the cited judgments and held that the impugned order could not be sustained. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed with consequential benefits as per law. The Tribunal emphasized that the recipient of goods is entitled to Cenvat credit of duty paid, irrespective of whether the inputs were exempt from duty, and that the Board’s Circular does not override the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The order was pronounced in the open court on 17 March 2020.
|
