2007 (10) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Respondents were getting the goods manufactured from their job workers and was availing Cenvat credit facility - though the respondents were not entitled to credit as they have not undertaken any manufacturing activity but the facts remains that they have paid duty on the final products in which the inputs was used and the quantum of duty paid on the final products is not less than the credit taken on the inputs demand set aside on account of revenue neutrality

Summary

Issues:
1. Loss of status as assessee due to omission of Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Allegation of contravention of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Violation of Rule 6 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Alleged violation of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
5. Recovery of Cenvat credit availed during a specific period.
6. Adjudication by the Deputy Commissioner and imposition of penalty.
7. Setting aside of the Deputy Commissioner's order by the Commissioner (Appeals).
8. Revenue's contention regarding Modvat credit post omission of Rule 12B.
9. Consideration of revenue neutrality in duty payment.
10. Reference to relevant legal precedents in support of revenue neutrality.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the loss of assessee status by the respondents following the omission of Rule 12B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This led to a dispute regarding their classification as a manufacturer and their entitlement to Cenvat credit facility.

2. The show cause notice alleged contravention of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, asserting that the respondents availed Cenvat credit on inputs without being a manufacturer or trader. Additionally, violations of Rule 6 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were also cited.

3. The Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the show cause notice, confirming the duty amount and imposing a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside this order, reasoning that since duty had been paid on the finished product, recovering duty on the same inputs would result in double taxation.

4. The revenue contended that post the omission of Rule 12B, the respondents were not eligible to claim Modvat credit for inputs received. However, the appellate authority found that the duty paid on the final products utilizing those inputs equaled or exceeded the credit taken on the inputs, resulting in revenue neutrality.

5. The judgment referenced legal precedents such as Commissioner of Central Excise v. Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Punjab Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, and Commissioner v. Super Forgings & Steels Ltd., where demands were not sustained due to revenue neutrality, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal in this case.