2007 (5) TMI 97 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat - Department is of the view that the S.O.dyes purchased by them are not subjected to any manufacturing process and hence can t be termed as input and accordingly not liable for credit on it - Held that department view is not correct and allowed the credit to appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Eligibility of availing Cenvat credit for goods purchased from third party
- Reversal of credit on removal of goods for export
- Compliance with Central Excise Rules regarding manufacturing process

Interpretation of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The Tribunal analyzed Rule 16 which allows bringing goods to the factory for various reasons, including remaking and reconditioning. The Rule permits taking Cenvat credit of duty paid on such goods, as long as the process does not amount to manufacturing. The Tribunal considered the appellant's process of testing and repacking goods for export as permissible under Rule 16. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s interpretation of Rule 16 as legal and proper.

Eligibility of availing Cenvat credit for goods purchased from third party:
The appellant, a manufacturer of S.O. dyes, purchased S.O. dyes from third parties and availed Cenvat credit for duty paid on these goods. The original authority contended that these purchased dyes were not subjected to any manufacturing process and thus could not be considered inputs. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) referred to Rule 16, which allows bringing duty-paid goods for various reasons, and permitted the appellant's actions. The Tribunal found that the appellant had followed the provisions of Rule 16 in availing the credit for goods purchased from third parties.

Reversal of credit on removal of goods for export:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of reversing the credit on the removal of goods for export without payment of duty. The appellant had exported the goods after undertaking certain processes, and the Tribunal noted that if duty was paid at the time of removal, it would be available as a rebate. The Tribunal found no evidence of the appellant obtaining double benefits and concluded that the appellant's actions were in compliance with the rules regarding the reversal of credit on removal for export.

Compliance with Central Excise Rules regarding manufacturing process:
The Tribunal considered the argument that the process to which the goods were subjected did not amount to manufacturing, which would require the reversal of the Cenvat credit. The Tribunal examined the appellant's processes of testing and repacking the goods for export and found them to be in accordance with Rule 16. The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, stating that no valid grounds were presented to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings. The appeal was thus dismissed in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including the interpretation of Rule 16, eligibility of availing Cenvat credit, reversal of credit on export, and compliance with Central Excise Rules regarding the manufacturing process.