2010 (3) TMI 1124 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of CENVAT credit on capital goods cleared under bond for export.
2. Reversal of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods cleared from the factory.
3. Interpretation of the term "as such" under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue 1: Reversal of CENVAT credit on capital goods cleared under bond for export:
The appellant imported capital goods, cleared them under bond for export claiming drawback, and took CENVAT credit on the CVD. The original authority held that the appellant was not entitled to avail CENVAT credit as the goods were not intended for manufacturing excisable goods. A demand of duty was confirmed against the appellant. The Commissioner(Appeals) did not examine the contention that the appellant had modified their drawback claim to exclude CVD. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide whether the appellant is entitled to retain the CENVAT credit of CVD on the capital goods while pursuing their drawback claim.

Issue 2: Reversal of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods cleared from the factory:
The assessee cleared inputs and capital goods from the factory after taking CENVAT credit. The department demanded differential duty on the inputs cleared at a lower assessable value and sought to recover duty on the capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty, which was sustained by the Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal found no valid ground against the demand of duty on the inputs cleared at a lower value. Regarding the capital goods, the Tribunal considered conflicting decisions and directed the lower appellate authority to readdress the question of whether the capital goods were removed "as such" under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the term "as such" under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of the term "as such" in the context of capital goods removed from the factory after being used for manufacturing final products. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law and held that the question of whether the credit-availed capital goods were removed "as such" should be readdressed by the lower appellate authority. The input-related issue was decided in favor of the Revenue, while the second appeal was disposed of accordingly.

This judgment delves into the complexities of CENVAT credit reversal on capital goods cleared for export and inputs/capital goods cleared from the factory. It also provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of the term "as such" under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, highlighting conflicting decisions and the need for readdressing certain issues by the lower appellate authority.