News Update

Former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planing drugs to frame lawyerCentre receives Rs 18.5 lakh crore tax revenue upto Feb monthUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayExpert Committee on developing GIFT IFSC as 'Global Finance and Accounting Hub' submits report to IFSCAIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEADefence Production issues notification for re-organisation of DGQAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of Lokpal
 
CX – Provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC are not same as Rule 6(6) of CCR as former dealt with 'products' while latter deals with excisable 'goods': CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, NOV 20, 2017: THE appellants are in appeal against demand of reversal of CENVAT credit of certain 'products' cleared by them under Sr.No. 232 of notification 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.

The impugned entry reads -

 

Table

Sl. No.

Chapter or heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule

Description of excisable goods

Rate

Condition No.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

232 84 or any other Chapter Goods specified in List 7 intended to be used for the installation of a cold storage, cold room or refrigerated vehicle, for the preservation, storage, transport or processing of agricultural, apiary, horticultural, dairy, poultry, aquatic and marine produce and meat Nil 2 and 3
2. Where such use is elsewhere than in the factory of production, the exemption shall be allowed if the procedure laid down in the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, is followed.
3. The exemption shall be allowed if it has been proved to the satisfaction of an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case be, having jurisdiction that such goods are cleared for the intended use specified in column (3) of the Table.

It is the contention of the appellant that the impugned notification does not grant full exemption to goods but it is a conditional exemption and in these circumstances, the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CCR are not attracted.

The appellant also argued that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as they have been regularly filing ER-1 returns which contain all the relevant facts and that there was no intention to evade duty.

The AR justified the impugned order by drawing attention to the opening paragraph of the said notification wherein it is clearly stated that the Central government hereby exempts the excisable goods of the description specified in the table attached. It is argued that in view of above there is no dispute that there is exemption for these goods, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6 of CCR can be invoked. He pointed that while the fact regarding the clearance under exemption was known to the revenue, the fact that common inputs are used was not known and hence the extended period of limitation is applicable.

The Bench adverted to rule 6(6) of CCR, 2004 and observed –

"…It is seen that the law permits appellants not to reverse credit in respect of which reversal is not required are clearly specified under sub-rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The nature of clearance made under notification 12/12-CE dated 17.03.2012 which are excluded from mischief of the said sub-rule are clearly specified in the said sub-rule itself. The clearance made by the appellants do not fall under this category. The appellants have claimed that the fact regarding the exempted clearance was known to the revenue as the date was part of the ER-1 file by the appellants. Though admittedly the ER-1 contained details of the value of the exempted goods cleared by the appellants still from that day it cannot be ascertained if the goods cleared under notification 12/12-CE by the appellants in the instant case were hit by mischief of Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, since the exclusion from the mischief of Rule 6(6) is very specific. The appellants cannot claim that the facts that the goods were not related power projects was known to the revenue or they had disclosed the relevant fact to the revenue. In these circumstances, extended period has rightly been invoked."

Drawing a distinction between the contents of the erst while rule 57CC of CER (which case laws were cited by the appellant), the CESTAT further observed –

"It is seen that the sub-rule 6(6) deals with the 'excisable goods'. A 'product' is different from 'goods'. A 'product' is categorical where as 'goods' are specified goods. While a 'product' can be a class, 'goods' are only specified goods. Thus while Rule 57CC was dealing with 'products' the Rule 6(6) deals with excisable 'goods'. Therefore for application of Rule 57CC the 'product' has to be exempted. For application of Rule 6(6) the 'goods' have to be exempted. In these circumstances, it is clear that the two rules are significantly different and therefore the provisions of Rule 57CC are not the same as Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules."

The appeal was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-4072-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023