2015 (10) TMI 880 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Imposition of penalty - CENVAT Credit - electro deposition coating - Held that - Bumpers and grills are more certainly of commercial use in themselves whether the process of electro deposotion coating applied or not. As the issue has been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court that if input after electro deposition coating has been cleared by reversing Cenvat Credit as such in that case appellant is not required to pay any duty thereon, and the reversal of Cenvat Credit is sufficient. In these terms, we hold that the reversal made by the appellant at the time of clearing these inputs as such is sufficient. Therefore, demand as per the impugned order are not sustainable. - impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to demand of duty, interest, and penalty for the period March 2003-March 2005 due to electro deposition coating activity on sheet metal parts without using them in the final product.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of motor vehicles, challenged the demand of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to &8377; 73,07,806/- for the period March 2003-March 2005. The issue arose from the appellant's practice of procuring sheet metal parts, availing Cenvat Credit on inputs, subjecting sheets to electro deposition and coating, and subsequently removing some parts without using them in the final product. A show cause notice was issued based on the premise that electro deposition and coating constituted manufacturing activity under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act 1944. The adjudication confirmed the duty demand, interest, and imposed a penalty, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant contended that a previous Tribunal decision held them liable to pay duty on the intrinsic value of the coating on removed inputs, necessitating the reversal of Cenvat Credit and payment of appropriate duty. The Adjudicating Authority relied on this precedent to confirm the demand. However, the appellant highlighted a subsequent Supreme Court judgment where their appeal was allowed, emphasizing the correctness of the reversal made by the appellant in such cases.

During the hearing, the appellant's argument was supported by the previous Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing that electro deposition coating did not transform the spare parts into a new commodity merely due to value addition. The Court observed that bumpers and grills retained commercial utility with or without the coating process, concluding that the appellant's reversal of Cenvat Credit upon clearing the inputs sufficed, and no additional duty was warranted. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the treatment of electro deposition coating activity on sheet metal parts and affirmed that the reversal of Cenvat Credit upon clearing inputs without using them in the final product was adequate, rendering the demand for duty, interest, and penalty unsustainable.