2014 (9) TMI 444 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the first respondent is entitled to Cenvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods and which are cleared without payment of duty on job work basis under Notification 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986 - Held that - Similar question raised have already been decided against the revenue - following the decisions of the Bombay High Court reported in 2008 (8) TMI 783 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Commissioner v. Sterlite Industries (I) Limited as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2011 (2) TMI 152 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Jainsons Wool Coombers Ltd., which were based on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2004 (8) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Escorts Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods cleared without duty payment on job work basis.
2. Application of judgment in Sterlite Industries case and finality of the decision.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the entitlement of Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods cleared without duty payment on a job work basis under Notification 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing the first respondent to claim such credit. The counsel for the first respondent cited an unreported decision in a similar case where the Revenue's question was answered against them. This decision was based on judgments from the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which, in turn, relied on a Supreme Court decision. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision in favor of the first respondent, dismissing the appeal.

2. The second issue pertains to the application of the judgment in the Sterlite Industries case and the finality of the decision. The Court considered whether the CESTAT was justified in applying the ratio of the Sterlite Industries case, given the distinct facts of the current case and the non-finality of the former decision. The Court noted the differences in the factual scenarios and the lack of finality of the Sterlite Industries case. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision against the Revenue. No costs were awarded in this matter.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras, in the cited judgment, addressed the issues concerning Cenvat credit entitlement and the application of precedent in a meticulous manner, relying on previous decisions and legal principles to render a comprehensive and well-reasoned judgment.