2017 (7) TMI 56 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - job-work - whether the appellants were eligible to avail CENVAT credit on inputs and input services used in the manufacture of job work goods and use the said credit for clearance of goods manufactured at a later stage? - Held that - MODVAT credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final products cleared without payment of duty for further utilization in the manufacture of final products which are cleared on payment of duty by the principle manufacturer would not be hit by provisions of Rule 57C - reliance was placed in teh case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE 2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order rejecting CENVAT credit on inputs used in job work goods.
- Interpretation of Rule 3(i) and Rule 6(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004.
- Consideration of judicial precedents and Notification No.214/86 dated 24.3.86.
- Applicability of the decision in Sterlite Industries Ltd. case by Larger Bench.
- Sustainability of the impugned order in law.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of CENVAT credit on inputs used in job work goods under Rule 3(i) and Rule 6(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed CENVAT credit during a period with no production or clearance of goods but used the credit in job work activities. A show-cause notice was issued demanding recovery of the credit along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and penalty. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (A) who rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order failed to consider statutory provisions and judicial precedents. He highlighted that the Tribunal had previously allowed the appellant's appeal in a similar case, citing the decision in Sterlite Industries Ltd. case by the Larger Bench. The counsel emphasized that the impugned order exceeded the scope of the show-cause notice by not mentioning Notification No.214/86 dated 24.3.86. The counsel presented the Tribunal's earlier decision favoring the appellant based on similar grounds.

On the contrary, the AR supported the findings of the impugned order. However, after evaluating both parties' submissions and the precedent in the appellant's previous case, the Judicial Member concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law. Relying on the decision of the Larger Bench in the Sterlite Industries Ltd. case, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The Judicial Member emphasized the similarity of facts and circumstances with the precedent, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.

In the final judgment, the Judicial Member pronounced the operative part of the order, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant rules and the application of judicial precedents, particularly the decision in the Sterlite Industries Ltd. case by the Larger Bench. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering legal provisions and precedents in determining the eligibility of CENVAT credit, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.