2010 (9) TMI 1038 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on availed CENVAT credit without receiving goods against invoices.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the confirmation of demand amounting to Rs. 4,84,704/- along with interest and penalty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to the appellant availing CENVAT credit without receiving goods against the invoices. The appellant had availed credit based on an invoice for development cost issued by job workers without accompanying goods, which led to the lower authorities confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant argued that the development cost was part of the assessable value of goods manufactured for them, constituting a valid basis for availing credit. They contended that the die development charges were included in the costing of goods supplied and were not treated as a separate service. The appellant also highlighted that the die was essential for manufacturing the ordered goods and formed part of the transaction value. The appellant's position was supported by legal precedents and accounting treatment of the development charges.

The appellant's consultant emphasized that the die used for manufacturing the goods was essential and formed part of the assessable value of the inputs procured. They referenced a previous case to support their argument that design and development charges should be included in the assessable value of excisable goods. The tribunal acknowledged the importance of the die in manufacturing the ordered goods and the necessity of including its cost in the assessable value. The tribunal noted that the die was procured by the supplier specifically for manufacturing the goods ordered by the appellant, making it an integral part of the transaction. The tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit for the die development cost based on the legal principles established in previous cases. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the admissibility of CENVAT credit based on the development cost invoice without receiving accompanying goods. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, recognizing the die development cost as part of the assessable value of the goods procured. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and established legal principles in determining the eligibility for availing CENVAT credit.