2015 (3) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of input credit - denial on the premise that the process of repairing, reconditioning etc. cannot be treated as manufacturing activities - Denial of input service credit - service availed beyond the place of removal - Held that - It is not disputed that the Rubber Conveyor Belts in question have been cleared by the appellant on payment of duty. Therefore, the duty paid at the time of clearance amounts to reversal of CENVAT Credit on inputs cleared as such or the activity of repairing, reconditioning etc. does not amounts to manufacture as per the decision in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Therefore, I hold that the appellants are entitled to avail input credit on the Rubber Conveyor Belts in question. Further, I hold that in case of export, the place of removal is the port from where the goods have been exported. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to take input service credit on the CHA service. Accordingly, I hold that the appellants are entitled to take credit on input service in question. - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of input credit and input service credit.

Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal against impugned orders denying input credit and input service credit. In Appeal No. E/85141/14, the appellant also sought Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal due to a composite order. The Registry pointed out the delay, leading the appellant to file a supplementary appeal. The reason for the delay was satisfactorily explained, resulting in the condonation of the delay by the Tribunal.

2. Admissibility of Input Credit and Input Service Credit:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Rubber Conveyor Belts, faced denial of input credit on procured semi-finished goods due to the repairing, reconditioning, and testing processes. The denial was based on the premise that these activities did not constitute manufacturing. Additionally, input service credit on CHA service was denied as it was availed beyond the place of removal. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand for input service credit but confirmed the denial of CENVAT credit on the conveyor belts. Both the Revenue and the appellant appealed, with the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal and allowing the Revenue's appeal.

3. Arguments and Decision on Input Credit and Input Service Credit:
The appellant argued that since they cleared the Rubber Conveyor Belts on payment of duty, it amounted to reversal of credit, citing a Tribunal decision affirmed by the High Court. They contended that CHA services were availed during export, making the port of export the place of removal and justifying input service credit. The Tribunal considered both submissions and held that the duty paid on clearance constituted reversal of CENVAT credit. It also determined that the repairing and reconditioning activities did not amount to manufacturing. Regarding input service credit, the Tribunal agreed that the port of export served as the place of removal, entitling the appellant to claim the credit.

4. Final Decision:
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and granting any consequential relief. The appellant was deemed entitled to avail input credit on the Rubber Conveyor Belts and input service credit on the CHA service, as per the Tribunal's decision.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision on the denial of input credit and input service credit, ensuring a detailed understanding of the legal aspects involved.