9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 371 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - Bars and Rods of non alloy steel - denial on the ground that the goods manufactured by the Respondent being notified goods in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944, the respondent should pay duty under Section 3A of Central Excise Act,1944 and not entitle for modvat credit - Held that - the respondent s payment of duty under section 3 is in order and provision of Section 3A is not applicable - reliance placed in the case of SHREE VENKATESH STEEL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD 2005 (12) TMI 404 - CESTAT, MUMBAI where it was held that since the respondent is producing predominantly non notified goods, they are entitled to discharge duty liability for the entire quantity of goods under the normal procedure under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and they are also eligible to take Modvat credit on the inputs used. The respondent is entitled for Modvat credit as well as job work N/N. 214/86-C.E. - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against order in original regarding demand and disallowance of Modvat credit under Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order in original passed by the Commissioner Of Central Excise and Customs, Raigad. The respondent was engaged in manufacturing excisable goods falling under different chapters. The adjudicating authority disallowed Modvat credit, stating that since the goods manufactured were notified goods under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the respondent should pay duty accordingly. The respondent argued that as they manufactured more than 50% non-notified goods, they were not required to pay duty under Section 3A. The revenue's appeal contended that the adjudicating authority did not address the disallowance of accumulated credit balance or the duty on job work since the respondent was not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. During the proceedings, the respondent's consultant submitted a letter indicating that the Tribunal had previously allowed an appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2005 stated that as the respondent predominantly produced non-notified goods, they were entitled to discharge duty under normal procedures of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and could avail Modvat credit on inputs used. After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the issue had already been settled in favor of the respondent by the previous order dated 16.12.2005. As per this order, the respondent's duty payment under Section 3 was deemed appropriate, and the provision of Section 3A was not applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent was entitled to Modvat credit and job work under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. Therefore, the revenue's appeal on these two issues was deemed irrelevant, and the appeal was dismissed. The order was pronounced in court on 2/1/2017.
|
