2014 (11) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - Job works - Whether the job workers can prefer to pay excise duty in spite of having exemption notification bearing no. 214 of 1986 - Held that - By relying upon a three-judge-bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of International Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bihar (2005 (3) TMI 132 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), submitted that the questions so raised by the Revenue are fully answered by the Supreme Court in the above decision and the selfsame principle has been followed by the Tribunal. There is no dispute that according to the modvat scheme, it is the modvat of such final product which would have to include the cost of the inputs and in respect of which Modvat credit could be taken at the time of clearance of the final product and thus, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of the Revenue that the respondents should have reversed the Cenvat credit taken before sending the goods to the job worker since the job worker had not followed the procedure of job work - Following decision of COMMR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-I Versus ROHAN DYES & INTERMEDIATED LTD. 2013 (4) TMI 277 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,78,93,790 along with interest and penalty imposed.

Analysis:
The appellants took Cenvat credit on imported inputs supplied to job workers, who paid duty on the goods returned. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit, alleging double credit on the same inputs. The appellants argued their entitlement to credit and cited precedents. The Tribunal examined the issue in light of the Gujarat High Court judgment in CCE Vs. Rohan Dyes & Intermediated Ltd. The High Court held that the final product manufacturer can take credit on inputs supplied to intermediate producers, even if the intermediate product is dutiable. This principle was further supported by CESTAT in Hindustan Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The Tribunal also referenced Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Meerut-I, emphasizing that Cenvat credit is permissible to the principal manufacturer, even if credit was previously availed upon receiving the inputs. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the credit based on established legal precedents.

The Tribunal highlighted that the job worker not availing credit on the imported inputs was undisputed. Following the legal principles established in previous judgments, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and overturned the Order-in-Original disallowing the Cenvat credit. The decision was based on the revenue-neutral nature of the transaction and the applicability of Cenvat credit rules to the situation at hand. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with the interpretations of the Modvat and Cenvat credit schemes, ensuring that the appellants were rightfully entitled to claim the Cenvat credit on the duty paid by the job workers. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with the legal framework and judicial precedents, providing clarity on the admissibility of Cenvat credit in such scenarios.