2010 (9) TMI 318 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit Manufacturer Demand alleging that goods not manufactured by respondent - opinion of the Chartered Engineer also to the effect that the respondents had no machinery in their premises which is capable of manufacturing sugar mill machinery and parts thereof which were shown to have been cleared under the invoices of the respondents - respondents also admitted during the investigation that the goods were manufactured at the premises of M/s. Kay Iron Works evidence on records leads to the conclusion that the goods were manufactured by M/s. Kay Iron Works but shown to have been cleared under the invoices of the respondents - Held that - finding of the adjudicating authority that the goods were manufactured by respondent not sustainable Order set aside Appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of credit for raw material not received by the appellant.
2. Manufacturing of goods by a different unit under SSI exemption but cleared under the appellant's name.
3. Verification of manufacturing activities at the appellant's premises.
4. Entitlement of credit for inputs used in manufacturing the final product.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a show-cause notice issued to the appellant for demanding duty after denying credit on the basis of not receiving the raw material for which credit was availed. The Revenue contended that the appellant, registered for manufacturing sugar mill machinery, did not have the capability to manufacture such goods, and the goods were actually manufactured by a different unit availing SSI exemption. The adjudicating authority found that the raw material was received and used in manufacturing, but the Revenue argued otherwise based on expert opinions and statements.

2. The Revenue relied on the statement of the proprietor of the appellant, who admitted that no goods were manufactured at their premises and that the goods were actually manufactured by another unit. The Chartered Engineer's opinion supported this claim, stating that the appellant lacked the necessary machinery and infrastructure for manufacturing the goods shown in the invoices. The appellant had also deposited an amount for the inputs found short during investigation, further indicating discrepancies.

3. Despite being registered for manufacturing sugar mill machinery, the appellant did not have evidence of actual manufacturing activities at their premises. The evidence pointed towards the goods being manufactured by a different unit under SSI exemption, which was not entitled to credit for inputs used. The appellant's admission during the investigation further supported the conclusion that the goods were not manufactured at their premises, leading to the setting aside of the adjudicating authority's finding and allowing the appeal.

4. The judgment highlighted the importance of actual manufacturing activities at the registered premises to claim credit for inputs used in the final product. In this case, the evidence pointed towards the goods being manufactured by a different unit availing SSI exemption, leading to the disallowance of credit for the appellant. The appeal was allowed based on the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's manufacturing activities and the discrepancies in the statements and expert opinions presented by the Revenue.