Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities  ||  Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged  ||  Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act  ||  Delhi HC: Unmarried Granddaughter’s Limited Estate Can Become Absolute if Pre-Existing Right  ||  MP High Court: Labour Laws are Beneficial, and Hyper-Technical Limitation Views Must be Avoided  ||  Calcutta HC: Supplementary Chargesheet Filed Late in NDPS Trial is Valid if Based on Fresh Evidence  ||  Delhi High Court: Co-Accused’s Abscondence Can Be a Relevant Factor in Granting NDPS Bail  ||  P &H HC: Unfavourable Orders Cannot Justify Trial Transfer; Courts Must Prevent Forum Hunting  ||  SC: UGC Regulations Override State Law on Forming Search Committees For University VC Appointments  ||  SC: State Cannot Deny Regularisation to Long-Serving Contract Staff Appointed Through Due Process    

Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax, Customs And Excise vs. Maihar Cement - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (31 Aug 2022)

Rule 6 (3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable when Appellant has reversed the proportionate Cenvat credit

MANU/CE/0292/2022

Excise

Present appeals have been filed against common order-in- original by which 10 show cause notices were adjudicated on the common issue whereby the learned Commissioner have dropped the demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit, proposed under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004.

The show cause notices are misconceived for any demand under Rule 6(3)(b)/6(3)(i) of Rules due to the admitted fact that, the Appellant have admittedly reversed the proportionate credit on input/explosives for limestone cleared from the captive mines to Unit-2. Rule 6 provides for a mechanism to reverse Cenvat credit either proportionately, if it can be calculated, and in the alternative, if the same cannot be calculated with ease, the rule provides for reversal of Cenvat credit taken on common inputs by reversing a specified percentage of the sales/transfer value of the exempted product. Such reversal is restricted to the opening balance of credit in the Cenvat account at the beginning of the period as modified by Cenvat credit taken during the accounting period.

In view of the admitted fact that, the Appellant have reversed the proportionate credit, the facts are covered squarely by the ruling of Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE. The Appellant have reversed the proportionate Cenvat credit in terms of Rules 6 (3)(ii) of CCR, thus, there is no application of Rule 6 (3)(i) of Rules. The situation is wholly revenue neutral, as both the units under common management and ownership are paying duty on their dutiable finished product namely cement and clinker. In case, duty was paid in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of Rules, the same was available as credit to unit 2 as input credit. There is no merit in the appeals of revenue. Appeals dismissed.

Tags : DEMAND   DELETION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved