2013 (11) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of Cenvat Credit Process Manufacture OR Not Waiver of Pre-deposit - Revenue was of the view that the processes of sliting/pickling undertaken does not amount to manufacture Held that - The slited and pickled sheets received by the appellant were duty paid - Rule 3 of cenvat credit rules 2004, allow an assessee to take credit of duty paid on the inputs received by him - The only requirement of law is that the inputs received by an assessee should be duty paid Relying upon MDS Switchgear Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad 2001 (4) TMI 130 - CEGAT, MUMBAI - manufacturer is entitled to avail the benefit of duty paid by the supplier, manufacturer - the appellant are entitled to avail the benefit of duty paid by them and has very good prima facie case - the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty dispensed till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the processes of slitting/pickling undertaken by the input supplier amount to manufacture.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of cenvat credit of duty paid on the input/raw-material.
3. Validity of the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue contended that the processes of slitting/pickling by the input supplier do not amount to manufacture. The appellant received duty-paid slitted and pickled sheets from the supplier, M/s. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd. The Revenue argued that since the supplier should not have paid duty, the appellant was not entitled to cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant satisfied all conditions under Rule 3 of the cenvat credit rules. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no legal requirement for the appellant to verify the manufacturing processes at the supplier's end. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of duty paid by the supplier.

2. The Commissioner, Central Excise, issued show cause notices resulting in an order demanding duty and penalty from the appellant. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had received duty-paid inputs, duly recorded them, and utilized them in the manufacture of final products. The Tribunal found that the appellant had met all requirements under Rule 3 for availing cenvat credit. Moreover, proceedings against the input supplier, M/s. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., also confirmed the demand against them. The Tribunal granted unconditional stay to the supplier, further supporting the appellant's entitlement to avail the benefit of duty paid.

3. Considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was indeed entitled to avail the benefit of duty paid on the inputs. The Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit condition for duty and penalty, acknowledging that the appellant had a strong prima facie case. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition unconditionally, ruling in favor of the appellant's right to cenvat credit and rejecting the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner, Central Excise.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, and conclusions reached by the Tribunal in the case.