9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 945 - HC - Central ExciseWhether the assessee used the texturised yarn of polysters manufactured by an independent texturiser as it was not having the facility in its factory for manufacture of partially oriented yarn of polysters, so, it (assessee) was not entitled to avail the Cenvat credit in respect of such inputs, in view of Rule 3(6)(d) of the Cenvat Rules, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well? Held that - The assessee is held entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on the inputs sent for intermediate job to the job worker, which were received in its factory for manufacture of final product or Zipper rolls, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Thus, the question of law raised in this appeal is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the-revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 57(AB)(2)(c) regarding CENVAT credit entitlement. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed invoking Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision favoring the respondent-assessee regarding the CENVAT credit issue. 2. The revenue alleged that the assessee wrongly availed CENVAT credit on partially oriented yarn, leading to a show cause notice demanding duty recovery, interest, and penalty under various provisions of the Act and Rules. 3. The assessee contended that it lawfully claimed the CENVAT credit as it purchased partially oriented yarn as an input for manufacturing intermediate products used in producing final goods, denying the revenue's allegations. 4. Despite the detailed explanation by the assessee, the Commissioner disallowed the CENVAT credit, ordered recovery, confirmed duty demand, and imposed penalties, which led to the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal, prompting the revenue to challenge the decision, raising the substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Rule 57(AB)(2)(c) in the present appeal. 6. After hearing both parties and examining the case records, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, upholding the impugned order. 7. The revenue argued that the assessee, not manufacturing partially oriented yarn, was ineligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 3(6)(d), but the Court disagreed, emphasizing the assessee's role as a manufacturer of final products, not an independent texturiser. 8. Referring to Rule 3 of the CENVAT Rules, the Court highlighted the entitlement of manufacturers to claim CENVAT credit on inputs used for intermediate products, emphasizing the duty paid character of inputs used in the final product's manufacture. 9. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that the objective of input duty relief should not be defeated by strict interpretations, especially when the duty paid character of inputs and their utilization in final product manufacture are established. 10. Ultimately, the Court held that the assessee was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on inputs sent for intermediate processing, received in its factory for final product manufacture, dismissing the revenue's contrary arguments and ruling in favor of the assessee. 11. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the revenue's contentions, and made no order as to costs.
|
