9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 855 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit - value of goods cleared under N/N. 82/84 to M/s HSL claiming exemption - whether provisions of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules shall be applicable to the present transactions? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the Rule makes it clear that it applies in cases where manufacturer is engaged in manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as the manufacturers another final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to Nil rate of duty and the manufacturer takes credit of the specified duty on any inputs, which is used in manufacture of both the above kind of final products - The facts of the present case are that there is one final product of the appellant herein i.e. is dissolved acetylene gas which is cleared by the appellant on payment of requisite excise duty except for M/s HSL being entitled for exemption under Notification No. 82/84 provided it fulfills the procedure mentioned therein. Delhi Bench of this Tribunal also in the case of AUREOLA CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE 2004 (1) TMI 244 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI has held that the goods cleared by the then appellant i.e. spent sulphuric acid was cleared against CT-3 bond to the fertilizer manufacturer. The sulphuric acid was denied to be called as exempted product or the product chargeable to NIL rate of duty. Provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC/Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules were not held applicable. As per provisions of Chapter X Central Excise Rules 1944 and Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, anyone who wants to seek benefit of the provisions has to make an application in a proper form. On being satisfied, the Commissioner may extend the benefit of provision to the said specified industry. Thus the object of both the provisions is clear and the only difference is that Chapter X uses the word remission of duty on excisable goods and Central Excise Rules 2001 used the word exemption of duty to excisable goods . None of these words have been defined in the Central Excise Act. From the definition of exempted goods, it is clear that good may either be exempted from payment of any duty or was not charged to duty. In the present case, admittedly, dissolved acetylene gas as per tariff, is being charged to duty @ 14%. Notification 82/84 apparently does not extend exemption to dissolved acetylene gas as such it does extend the benefit to the specified industry buying this product . Hence the product cannot be held to have been covered under the definition of Rule 2(d) of CENVAT Credit Rules. Accordingly, applicability of Rules 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules is not at all sustainable. Thus, the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that Rule 6(3)(b) is applicable where the manufacturer is manufacturing two separate products one being charged to duty and another being exempt from payment of duty or is charged with NIL rate of duty. Apparently, the same is not the fact for the present case. The product in question is one and only one i.e. dissolved acetylene gas which is charged to duty @ 14% - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 82/84-CE dated 31/03/1984. 3. Compliance with Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 2001. 4. Previous Tribunal and High Court decisions on similar matters. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004: The core issue is whether Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, which mandates reversal of CENVAT credit when exempted goods are manufactured, applies to the appellant's case. The rule stipulates that manufacturers must either pay an amount equal to a percentage of the value of exempted goods or maintain separate accounts for inputs used in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellant manufactures only one final product, dissolved acetylene gas, which is generally subject to duty except when supplied to M/s HSL under the exemption. Since there are no two different products being manufactured, the Tribunal concluded that Rule 6 does not apply. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 82/84-CE dated 31/03/1984: The appellant cleared dissolved acetylene gas to M/s HSL without payment of duty under this notification, which provides an exemption when certain conditions are met. The Tribunal found that the appellant complied with the required procedures, including obtaining necessary certificates. Thus, the notification's conditions were fulfilled, supporting the appellant’s claim that the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit was incorrect. 3. Compliance with Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 2001: The Tribunal examined whether the procedures under these rules were followed. It was established that the appellant adhered to the rules, clearing the gas to M/s HSL after obtaining the necessary certificates. The Tribunal differentiated between the terms "remission" and "exemption," concluding that both essentially mean relief from duty, and the appellant's compliance with the rules justified the exemption. 4. Previous Tribunal and High Court decisions on similar matters: The Tribunal considered past decisions, including ten similar appeals where the appellant's claims were upheld. It also reviewed a recent decision dated 03/06/2019, which supported the department's stance. However, the Tribunal found that the earlier decisions, which ruled in favor of the appellant, were more relevant as they addressed similar factual circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the earlier decision’s interpretation of the rules and notification was consistent with the appellant’s case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules does not apply to the appellant since they manufacture only one product, which is generally dutiable. The exemption under Notification No. 82/84-CE was validly claimed, and the appellant complied with the required procedures under the Central Excise Rules 2001. The Tribunal set aside the order under challenge and allowed the appeal, supporting the appellant's position that the reversal of CENVAT credit was not warranted.
|
