Requirement of Intimating Superintendent Cannot be Equated with the Intimation to be given under Exemption Notification: CESTAT Remands Issue for Redetermination [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, held that the requirement of intimating the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent cannot be equated with the condition/intimation to be given under an exemption notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the CESTAT remanded the issue for redetermination of demanded reversal of credit.

The Respondent (M/s Metal Alloys Corporation) are availing Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The respondent uses LPG which is common input for both dutiable goods as well as exempted goods. The Adjudicating Authority noted that the respondent had reversed proportionate Cenvat credit along with interest on LPG. It was accepted.

Revenue appealed before the Commissioner who rejected it upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Revenue then appealed before CESTAT.

The authorised representative for the Revenue argued highlighting Rule 6 of CCR and mentioned that exercising option by intimating the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent is a substantive requirement and not a procedural requirement. The representative pleaded that a manufacturer is liable to reverse lump sum amount as per Rule 6(3) of CCR, in respect of exempted goods cleared by them.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that filing of intimation was not a mandatory requirement, taking into consideration exemption notifications issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act,1944.

The tribunal noted that requirements relating to name, address and registration number of manufacturer of goods or provider of output service are general information available with the department in various other returns filed by a registered tax payer. Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) and Satendra VIkram Singh (Technical Member) therefore treat this requirement only of a procedural nature.

A plethora of judicial precedents were relied upon to draw the conclusion that no question of law arises in the present matter. However, it was found that Rule 6(3A)(e) also require payment of interest on such reversals. Therefore, for this limited purpose, the appeal was allowed by way of remand.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates