2022 (3) TMI 359 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - transfer of Generator set after use by the appellant to its sister concern where the value has been assigned to that transfer - applicability of Rule 3(5A)(a) of the CCR, 2004 - time limitation - HELD THAT - The manufacturer buys the capital goods in order to use it for the manufacture of final products. The manufacturer avails the credit of excise duty on such inputs / capital goods which are utilised while making the final product as per Rule 4 of CCR, 2004. In manufacturing industry, it is a common practice to remove the goods (inputs /capital goods) from the factory place either as such or after use. It is in the later case that Rule 3(5A)(a) of CCR, 2004, comes into picture. When the inputs/ capital goods are no longer required by the manufacturer, the manufacturer disposes of them. In the present case, apparently and admittedly it is not the case of the appellant because the appellant has transferred the capital goods/ generator set from one of its unit to its another unit. If such a generator set would have been cleared by the appellant to any other unit, appellant definitely would have to reverse the proportionate credit on the depreciated value after deducting 2.5% of credit for each quarter or part of the use of machine from the date of taking of such credit as is apparent from Rule 3 - Also the proviso to Rule 3(5A)(a) of CCR, 2004, provides that if the amount so calculated by the above method is less than the amount equal to the duty leviable on transaction value, the amount to be paid shall be equal to the duty leviable on transaction value. The question of adjudication stands answered in affirmative i.e. Rule 3(5A) (a) the proviso thereof is applicable to the impugned transaction of the generator set after use by the appellant from one unit to another. Since the appellant has given the value of ₹ 6,14,322/- in the invoice while making the said transfer, thus, the said value has to be considered for calculating the reversal amount. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The plea of the learned Counsel that it was an interpretational error is not acceptable. It is a settled law that what is stated in the plain language in the statute has to be understood as it is. It is not permissible to assume any different intention or a different governing purpose than what has been mentioned in the statute - no error has been committed by the Department while invoking the extended period of limitation. Penalty has also been rightly imposed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Rule 3(5A)(a) of CCR, 2004 to the transfer of a generator set between units.
2. Interpretation of transaction value in the context of stock transfer.
3. Invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty.

Issue 1: Applicability of Rule 3(5A)(a) of CCR, 2004
The case revolves around whether Rule 3(5A)(a) of CCR, 2004 is relevant to the transfer of a generator set by the appellant between its units. The appellant argued that the transfer was a stock transfer and not a sale, thus the rule should not apply. However, the Commissioner found that the rule applied as the generator set was assigned a value during the transfer. The judge concurred, stating that the rule applies to situations where capital goods are removed after use, necessitating payment based on the transaction value or depreciated value.

Issue 2: Interpretation of transaction value
The appellant contended that since the generator set was not sold but transferred internally, the calculation based on the invoice value was unnecessary. However, the judge disagreed, citing the definition of sale in the Central Excise Act and the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The judge concluded that the transfer of possession for consideration, even between sister units, constituted a sale, making the invoice value the transaction value for calculation purposes.

Issue 3: Invocation of extended period of limitation and penalty
The appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation, claiming no suppression of facts or malafide intent. However, the judge upheld the department's decision, stating that the appellant's attempt to mislead regarding the stock transfer warranted the extended period. The judge also upheld the penalty, citing a precedent that statutory language must be understood as written, without assuming different intentions. Consequently, the order under challenge was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the judge's reasoning leading to the final decision.