Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1686 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - rule 6(3)(i) of the Credit Rules - Revenue entertained a view that in as much as during the relevant period from 18/03/2012 to 07/05/2012, the Notification No. 6/2006-CE as appearing in Rule 6(6)(vii) was not replaced with the new Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17/03/2012, the said Rule would not be applicable and the Appellant would be required to pay six per cent of the value of exempted goods cleared to the Mega Power Plant - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Notification No. 6/2006 continued to appear in Sub-Rule 6(6)(vii), even though the same was not in force during the relevant period and the said mistake was rectified on 08/05/2012, when Notification No. 25/2012, was issued. The subsequent exemption Notification No. 12/2012 was introduced in the said rule 6(6)(vii) thereafter. As is seen from the clarification issued by the Board, the Ministry of Finance vide their letter F. No. 267/49/2013-CX.8 dated 30th June, 2015 caused the unintended mistake, to be rectified later. The Supreme Court in the case of W.P.I.L. LTD V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [2005 (2) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT] dealt with an identical situation and observed that when it was the consistent policy of the Government to grant exemption to the parts used in the manufacture of power pumps, any gap between the withdrawal of such exemption and subsequent introduction of such exemption has to be treated as clarifactory in nature and has to be construed retrospectively. In the present case, it is not even the case of re-introduction of exemption notification. Exemption continued in as much as with the rescinding of Notification No. 6/2005, the subsequent Notification 12/2012 was immediately introduced. It is only in the provisions of Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Credit Rules, which are to the effect that there would be no requirement of reversal of any amount in case of the goods cleared under the exemption to Mega Power Project, Notification No. 6/2006 was not replaced with Notification No. 12/2012. This inadvertent mistake was clarified by the Board vide the clarification reproduced hereinabove. Admittedly, the goods continued to be cleared under exemption to the Mega Power Projects - it is the Notification No. 12/2012, that has to be read in the provisions Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules with retrospective effect. In such a scenario there would be no requirement of reversal of Cenvat Credit, in terms of the provisions Rule 6(3). Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|