9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 384 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 - Instant food mixes - CENVAT credit on inputs/capital goods used for manufacture of packing materials - denial of benefit on the ground that the CENVAT credit availed - Held that - similar issue decided in appellant own case M/s. MTR Foods (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I 2016 (8) TMI 485 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that CENVAT credit taken in case of inputs, for the manufacture of packing material (Chapter 39) can t be wrongly linked with the manufacture of another category of goods namely Instant Food Mixes, Ready-to-eat food product, etc. - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal for early hearing application in Appeal No. E/21263/2014 - Identical issue in appeals E/21263/2014, E/21576/2015, and E/23070/2014 - Denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 - Availing cenvat credit on inputs used for packing materials - Differential duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed - Tribunal's previous decision in favor of the appellant Analysis: 1. Early Hearing Application: The appellant filed an early hearing application in Appeal No. E/21263/2014, which was allowed by the Tribunal. Subsequently, two more appeals, E/21576/2015 and E/23070/2014, were listed for regular hearing, all involving identical issues. With the consent of both sides, all three appeals were taken up for final decision simultaneously. 2. Benefit of Exemption Notification: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed cenvat credit on duty paid for inputs and capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue initiated proceedings to deny the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011, claiming that availing cenvat credit on materials used for packing materials, whether for captive use or sale to Indian buyers, amounted to utilizing credit on inputs for manufacturing food products. This led to demands for differential duty, interest, and penalties. 3. Tribunal's Previous Decision: The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision in their favor (Final Order No. 20331/2016), where it was established that not availing cenvat credit for inputs used in manufacturing certain goods entitled them to the benefit of the exemption notification. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was legally entitled to claim the benefit of the notification and that the Revenue had misconstrued the facts by linking cenvat credit for packing materials with the manufacture of food products. 4. Final Decision: Following the earlier Tribunal's order and the legal principles cited, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all the appeals, providing the appellant with consequential benefits. The decision was dictated in open court on 11/12/2017, granting relief to the appellant based on the established legal position and factual circumstances. This detailed analysis highlights the procedural history, legal arguments, precedents, and the final decision of the Tribunal regarding the denial of exemption benefits and the availing of cenvat credit on inputs for packing materials in the context of excisable goods manufacturing.
|
