Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 659 - CESTAT MUMBAIRecovery of credit distributed by the registered input service distributor - Area Based Exemption - Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - disallowance of credit attributable to the other two factories in proportion to production that should, according to central excise authorities, have been excluded from the pool available for distribution - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in re Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd [2019 (12) TMI 230 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], it is found that there is an elaborate discussion on the logic in the decision of the Tribunal to narrow the intent of rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to basic excise duties only. Taking note that the submission of Revenue mirrored the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in Hero Motocorp Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Dehradun [2018 (1) TMI 770 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the distinction in the phrases in section 2A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was not intended as mutually exclusive enumeration. The decision of the Tribunal in re Fosroc Chemicals India Pvt Ltd [2016 (1) TMI 21 - CESTAT BANGALORE] was also about a dispute in which the ‘other cess’ on the output of the units, entitled to the same ‘area based exemption’, was to be computed on the basic excise duty which was exempted. The distinction of ‘automobile cess’, in so far as not being a levy under Central Excise Act, 1944 and not levied on basic excise duty, with ‘other cess’, that are exempted owing to exemption of basic excise duty makes the position abundantly clear. Nothing further survives in the finding of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order as the discharge of ‘automobile cess’ effaces coverage of rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to the output of the Rudrapur and Haridwar factories. Appeal allowed.
|