2014 (3) TMI 46 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT credit - To manufacture the Springs and Press Pans, the respondents procure S.S. Wire from the market - Whether activity drawing of wires from wire rods amounts to manufacture - Held that - When the Board itself is saying that drawing wire from wire rod amounts to manufacture and if the supplier has issued Cenvatable invoice by paying duty thereon then it cannot be said that he is not required to pay duty and the respondent cannot take the credit - if the activity does not amounts to manufacture the duty paid by the assesse is equal to reverse of credit. The supplier of the wire has paid duty and as per Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, if duty has been paid, the assessee is entitled to take credit - Following decision of AJINKYA ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-III 2013 (6) TMI 610 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order setting aside direction to reverse CENVAT Credit on S.S. Wire
- Whether drawing of wires from wire rods amounts to manufacture for duty purposes
- Interpretation of relevant case laws and Board's Circulars
- Entitlement of respondent to take credit based on duty paid invoices
- Application of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that set aside the direction to reverse the CENVAT Credit taken by the respondent on S.S. Wire. The Revenue contended that drawing wires from wire rods does not constitute manufacture, hence no duty was payable, and the respondent should not be entitled to take credit.

2. The respondent, a manufacturer of Springs and Press Pans, sourced S.S. Wire from the market where the supplier had paid duty, allowing the respondent to claim credit. The adjudicating authority upheld the Revenue's contention, leading to an appeal. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision, prompting the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The Revenue argued that the activity did not amount to manufacture, citing precedents such as CCE Bangalore vs. NTTF Industries Ltd. and CCE Jaipur I vs. R.F.H. Metal Castings (P) Ltd. In contrast, the respondent relied on Board's Circulars and case laws like CCE Vadodara v. Hylite Cables, Hind Enterprises v. CCE Jaipur, and Ajinkya Enterprises.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the case laws referred to by both parties. It distinguished the facts of the present case from the precedents cited by the Revenue, emphasizing that drawing wire from wire rods should be considered as manufacture as per the Board's Circular. The Tribunal also highlighted Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, stating that if duty has been paid, the assessee is entitled to take credit.

5. Considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order, affirming the respondent's entitlement to the CENVAT Credit based on the duty paid invoices. The Cross Objection was also disposed of in the same terms, concluding the matter.