2017 (12) TMI 1201 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 3(5B) of the CCR 2004 - bushes used for the manufacture of finished goods which would lose value during the use and were required to refurbish from time to time - Held that - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LTD. 2013 (2) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that There is significant difference in the accounting approach for the income-tax purpose and the approach for stock maintenance for the purpose of manufacturing activities relevant for the question of excise. Merely because the value of goods diminished in the books of accounts of the assessee would not by itself permit the Department to insist on reversal of the credit particularly when such goods were still available in the factory in usable condition. Relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon ble High Court Appeal no.E/86187/17 is allowed - In respect of Appeal no.E/86188/17 Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the issue in dispute. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on the issue covered in the dispute. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
2. Adjudication of separate issues under two different Order-in-Originals.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant, Owens Corning (India) Ltd., was using certain bushes for manufacturing finished goods. These bushes would lose value over time and needed refurbishment. A provision was made in the books of accounts for the value lost due to usage. The demand show-cause notice was raised invoking Rule 3(5B), which required payment equivalent to the CENVAT credit taken if the value of input or capital goods was written off fully or partially. The appellant argued that this rule did not apply to their situation, contesting the demand raised.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed a common order for two separate proceedings, where different issues were being adjudicated. The appellant pointed out that separate hearings were granted for each Order-in-Original, but a common order was issued. The Commissioner disposed of both appeals treating them as a common issue. However, in a subsequent order dated 31.05.2017, the Commissioner allowed a similar benefit under comparable circumstances, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ingersoll Rand India Ltd. The High Court's decision emphasized that the reduction of the value of spares for income-tax purposes should not equate to the writing off of physical stock. It highlighted the difference in accounting approaches for income-tax purposes and stock maintenance for manufacturing under Excise law.

3. The Tribunal found that one of the appeals (E/86187/17) related to the invocation of Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The impugned order addressed this issue, and based on the High Court's decision, the benefit was allowed, and the demand was set aside. However, in the other appeal (E/86188/17), the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide any finding on the issue in dispute. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for a decision on the specific issue covered in the dispute.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed one appeal and remanded the other for further consideration, emphasizing the importance of correctly interpreting and applying the relevant rules in tax matters.