9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 742 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - intermediate product - Modifier - the credits taken and utilised by the assessee on the item Modifier for further manufacture of Modified Bitumen for the period from January 2005 to December 2006 appeared irregular - Held that - the respondent has manufactured the modifier by mixing together crumbed rubber, Gilsonite and Sulphur and this modifier is used in the manufacture of CRMB - the respondent has also raised an invoice on HPCL clearly showing that modifier has been sold to HPCL and the same is consigned to HPCL and this has been done only to save the cost of packing and transportation - the respondent has rightly taken the CENVAT credit on the said modifier which was used for the manufacture of CRMB on which the duty has been paid - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Appeal against dropping of proceedings initiated by show-cause notice for irregular CENVAT credit taken and utilized on the product termed as modifier - Whether the respondent is eligible to take credit of duty paid on the modifier - Classification of the modifier under Chapter heading 4004 as that of Crumbed Rubber - Ownership change of the modifier by way of invoicing to M/s. HPCL, Bangalore - Manufacturing and supply of modified Bitumen (CRMB) to HPCL - Eligibility of the respondent to take CENVAT credit on the modifier used for the manufacture of CRMB Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner dropping the proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice. The case involved the respondent, a manufacturer of Bitumen products, who claimed CENVAT credit on an item called Modifier, which was alleged to be irregular. The officers found that more than 90% of the Modifier contained crumbed rubber only, and the respondent had taken credit based on their own invoices without physically delivering the goods to M/s. HPCL, Bangalore. The show-cause notice was issued for recovery of irregular CENVAT credit amounting to a specific sum for the period from January 2005 to December 2006. 2. The Revenue contended that the respondent was not the manufacturer of the modifier but a job worker, and that the modifier was used in the job work operation without being accounted for as a separate product. The Revenue argued that since no distinct product named as modifier emerged, the respondent was not liable to pay duty on it or claim CENVAT credit based on their own invoices. The Revenue challenged the finding of the Commissioner that allowed the respondent to take credit of duty paid on the modifier, despite issues with the method of raising invoices. 3. In response, the respondent stated that they manufactured and supplied modified Bitumen (CRMB) to HPCL, requiring raw materials of Bitumen and modifier for the process. HPCL requested the respondent to manufacture the modifier as HPCL had no facility for it. The modifier was manufactured, sold to HPCL, and used in the manufacture of CRMB. The respondent justified taking CENVAT credit on the modifier, as it was used in the dutiable CRMB production, and the duty paid on the modifier and other chemicals was also credited. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and cross-objection, upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings. It was found that the respondent had manufactured the modifier used in CRMB production, invoiced it to HPCL for cost-saving reasons, and correctly claimed CENVAT credit on the modifier. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order was detailed and reasoned, supporting the respondent's actions, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal along with disposing of the cross-objection. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to drop the proceedings, emphasizing the respondent's eligibility to claim CENVAT credit on the modifier used in the manufacture of CRMB, as supported by the detailed reasoning provided in the Commissioner's order.
|
