2019 (1) TMI 1919 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - silver wire - common input services both for exempted as well as dutiable goods - no separate record for actual utilization of input services both for exempted as well as dutiable goods - HELD THAT - It is a matter of record that respondent-assessee after it has been pointed out by the Audit party has reversed back the appropriate CENVAT credit of input services which have been availed by them and used for manufacture of exempted items namely silver wire falling under chapter sub-heading 7106 9210. Rules 6(3AA) has been inserted vide Notification No. 13/2016-CEX(NT) dated 1.3.2016 wherein it is made clear that a manufacturer who uses common input services both for exempted as well as dutiable goods in that case he is entitled to calculate the appropriate credit which have been taken towards exempted goods and on his own can reverse the same along with interest - it is found that respondent-assessee on his own after being pointed out has determined the credit which is required to be paid back out of his total credit of inputs and input services along with the interest involved thereon. There is no merit in the appeal of the department - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing of Cenvat credit on input services for both exempted and dutiable goods.
2. Allegation of failure to maintain separate records for utilization of input services.
3. Reversal of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 67,05,670.
4. Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
5. Compliance with the law regarding reversal of Cenvat credit.
6. Precedent from the case of M/s. Mercedes Benz India (Pvt) Ltd. vs CCE, Pune I.

1. Availing of Cenvat credit on input services for both exempted and dutiable goods:
The respondent-assessee was availing Cenvat credit on input services used for manufacturing both exempted and dutiable goods. The Department alleged that due to the lack of separate records for the utilization of these services, the respondent should have reversed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 67,05,670.

2. Allegation of failure to maintain separate records for utilization of input services:
The Department contended that the respondent failed to maintain separate records for the actual utilization of input services for exempted and dutiable goods, as required by Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

3. Reversal of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 67,05,670:
A show cause notice was issued to the respondent regarding the reversal of Cenvat credit. The respondent had reversed the appropriate Cenvat credit of input services used for manufacturing exempted items, specifically silver wire. The Department sought the reversal of the Cenvat credit along with interest.

4. Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Tribunal examined Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and noted the insertion of sub-rule (3AA) through Notification No. 13/2016-CEX(NT) dated 1.3.2016. This sub-rule allowed manufacturers using common input services for both exempted and dutiable goods to calculate and reverse the appropriate credit along with interest.

5. Compliance with the law regarding reversal of Cenvat credit:
The respondent, upon being informed by the Audit party, voluntarily determined the credit required to be paid back for exempted goods out of the total credit of inputs and input services. The Tribunal found that the respondent had complied with the law under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

6. Precedent from the case of M/s. Mercedes Benz India (Pvt) Ltd. vs CCE, Pune I:
The Tribunal referenced the case of M/s. Mercedes Benz India (Pvt) Ltd. vs CCE, Pune I to support its decision. The Tribunal held that, similar to the precedent case, there was no merit in the Department's appeal. The impugned order in appeal was upheld, and the Department's appeal was set aside.

This judgment analyzed the issues related to availing Cenvat credit on input services, failure to maintain separate records, reversal of Cenvat credit, interpretation of Rule 6, compliance with the law, and the application of a precedent case. The Tribunal ultimately upheld the respondent's compliance with the law and dismissed the Department's appeal based on the principles established in a prior case.