2018 (3) TMI 1221 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - manufacture of apparatus - inputs - denial on the ground that the impugned goods, not being apparatus , were not liable to duty, that the parts and accessories classifiable under 9022 9090 and, consequently, ineligible for CENVAT credit - Held that - Without such a re-classification for assessment, dutiability, or otherwise, of the manufactured goods cannot be re-determined and to the extent that duty liability has been discharged in accord with interpretation, learning or wisdom of the appellant, there is no scope for denying the CENVAT credit on the inputs that find use in manufacture - with the discharge of duty liability on goods for which the inputs were put to use, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not provide for denial of CENVAT credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing goods classified as 'apparatus' under Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Re-classification of goods for assessment of duty.
3. Interpretation of Rule 2(e) and 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of goods classified as 'apparatus' under specific headings, faced denial of CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing. The issue arose when the dutiability of the finished products was questioned, leading to a show-cause notice for re-classification and denial of credit. However, the Central Excise Act does not authorize re-classification unless for assessing or recovering duties. Since there was no evidence of short-payment or non-payment of duty, and no assessment of returns had been conducted, the denial of CENVAT credit based on re-classification was deemed unjustified.

2. The judgment highlighted that without a formal re-classification for assessment purposes, the dutiability of manufactured goods cannot be re-determined. As long as duty liability was discharged based on the interpretation, learning, or wisdom of the appellant, denying CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing was deemed unwarranted. The definition of 'final products' and 'inputs' under Rule 2(e) and 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was also referenced to emphasize that with the discharge of duty liability on goods produced using the inputs, denial of CENVAT credit was not supported by the legal framework.

3. Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, concluding that the denial of CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacturing goods classified as 'apparatus' was not justified under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the absence of grounds for denying credit when duty liability had been discharged appropriately.

Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the issues of denial of CENVAT credit on inputs, re-classification for duty assessment, and the interpretation of relevant rules under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It emphasized the necessity for proper assessment procedures and upheld the appellant's right to avail CENVAT credit in compliance with the legal framework governing excisable goods manufacturing.