2015 (3) TMI 657 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - denial of cenvat credit on the ground that activity undertaking by the assessee not amount to manufacture - process of printing and laminating the bare polyester / metalised film - whether an individual and distinct product has come into existence - manufacturing of packaging material falling under Chapter 39 and other final products, falling under Chapters 47, 48, 74, 76 and 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that - In the facts and circumstances peculiar to the Assessee , it was held by the Tribunal that the matter does not fall within the tests which are laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2004 (2) TMI 387 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). That Judgment is clearly distinguishable. Once such is the exercise undertaken by the Tribunal, then, no substantial question of law arises for our determination and consideration in this Appeal. The Appeal is devoid of merits. We are surprised that such an Appeal has been brought by the Revenue . For, once it is the Assessee who admits that what he is doing is manufacture of goods and products which are sold and marketable and known to the market as such. In the circumstances a clear rethink is necessary when blindly some ratio of a Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court and dehors the factual position is relied upon to file frivolous Appeals. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
2. Claim of Assessee regarding manufacturing packaging material and final products
3. Availment of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
4. Dispute over manufacturing activity and entitlement to credit
5. Commissioner's decision and Tribunal's findings on the manufacturing process
6. Consistency of Tribunal's findings with factual material
7. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment and lack of substantial legal question

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the challenge to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding an appeal by the Revenue against the decision favoring the Respondent Assessee.

2. The Assessee claimed to be manufacturing packaging material falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and availed Cenvat Credit for duty paid inputs and raw materials used in manufacturing final products under various chapters.

3. The Tribunal referred to the entire manufacturing process undertaken by the Assessee, who claimed that their activities fell within the definition of manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to the creation of new marketable products, justifying the availment of credit.

4. The Commissioner initially held that the Assessee did not manufacture anything, considering their activities as simple packaging without resulting in new products. However, the Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the activities indeed amounted to manufacture based on the transformation of raw materials into packaging materials of different specifications.

5. The High Court found the Tribunal's findings consistent with the factual evidence and process undertaken by the Assessee, highlighting that such findings were not erroneous or perverse in law. The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court judgment cited by the Commissioner, emphasizing the unique nature of the Assessee's manufacturing process.

6. Considering the specific circumstances of the case, the High Court agreed with the Tribunal that the matter was distinguishable from the Supreme Court precedent, indicating that no substantial legal question arose for consideration. The Court criticized the Revenue for filing a frivolous appeal, emphasizing the Assessee's admission of manufacturing goods and the lack of merit in challenging the Tribunal's decision.

7. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, highlighting the need for a reassessment when blindly relying on legal precedents without considering the factual context. The Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and did not award any costs in this matter.