2017 (11) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Deemed manufacturer - availing of Cenvat Credit after abolition of Rule 12B - Held that - identical issue decided in the appellant own case M/s Harco Exports (India) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I 2017 (6) TMI 267 - CESTAT MUMBAI - in both the proceedings, the charges against M/s.Harco Export (India) are identical in nature of having continued to avail Cenvat Credit and paid Central Excise duty despite resending of Rule 12B. Both the proceedings are for identical period. The proceedings initiated in Mumbai-1 Commissionerate has been set aside by the Tribunal by order dated 30/05/2017. Consequently, the impugned proceedings against M/s.Harco Exports (India) also cannot survive and are set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of Central Excise duty and penalty for availing Cenvat Credit after abolition of Rule 12B.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the demand of Central Excise duty and penalty by M/s. Harco Express (India), Gini Silk Mills Ltd. & Shree Enterprises for availing Cenvat Credit after the abolition of Rule 12B. The appellant's counsel argued that M/s. Harco Express (India) wrongly passed on the credit to M/s. Gini Silk Mills Ltd. after the abolition of Rule 12B. It was highlighted that a previous show-cause notice on the same issue was set aside by the Tribunal, indicating that the proceedings initiated by Thane Commissionerate could not be sustained. The argument was based on the premise that since the charges against M/s. Harco Express (India) did not stand in the previous case, the proceedings against the other two parties also failed.

In the judgment, it was noted that the charges against M/s. Harco Express (India) in both proceedings were identical, involving the continued availment of Cenvat Credit and payment of Central Excise duty post the abolition of Rule 12B. The Tribunal had previously set aside the proceedings initiated by Mumbai-1 Commissionerate against M/s. Harco Express (India) on the same issue. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned proceedings against M/s. Harco Express (India) could not be sustained, and subsequently, the charges against M/s. Gini Silk Mills Ltd. and Shree Enterprises also failed. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside based on the Tribunal's previous decision.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the issue of availing Cenvat Credit after the abolition of Rule 12B, with the Tribunal ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants due to the previous setting aside of similar charges against M/s. Harco Express (India). The decision highlighted the importance of consistency in legal proceedings and the impact of previous judgments on subsequent cases involving similar issues.