9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1446 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty not required to be paid on finished goods - Revenue has taken the view that such Cenvat Credit is required to be reversed since these inputs have been utilized for the manufacture of finished products which are not required to pay duty - Held that - the CENVAT Credit which has been availed, has been utilized by reversal for payment of duty on the finished products. Consequently, such CENVAT Credit is to be considered as already reversed and the Revenue is not justified in once again demanding the reversal of such CENVAT Credit. Reliance paced in the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-III vs Creative Enterprises 2008 (7) TMI 311 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that Tribunal is justified in holding that if the activity of the assessee does not amount to manufacture there can be no question of levy of duty, and if duty is levied, Modvat credit can t be denied by holding that there is no manufacture. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit for duty paid on inputs and its reversal. 2. Interpretation of the activity of laminating/metalizing of film as manufacture. 3. Applicability of Notification No. 22/2008-CE(NT) dated 02.05.2008. 4. Justification for reversal of Cenvat Credit by the Revenue. 5. Legal precedent regarding the reversal of Cenvat Credit. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the availing and reversal of Cenvat Credit for duty paid on inputs by the assessee-Appellants. The Revenue contended that since the finished products were not liable for central excise duty, the Cenvat Credit availed during the disputed period needed to be reversed. The assessee argued that they had already utilized the Cenvat Credit for paying duty on the finished products, and therefore, the Revenue's demand for reversal was unjustified. 2. The Tribunal examined whether the activity of laminating and metalizing the duty paid film amounted to manufacture. Referring to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, New Delhi, the Tribunal concluded that the said activity did not constitute manufacturing. Despite this, the assessee had paid duty on the finished products using the Cenvat Credit availed on inputs, leading to a disagreement with the Revenue over the reversal of Cenvat Credit. 3. The Notification No. 22/2008-CE(NT) dated 02.05.2008 was brought into consideration, which granted immunity from the reversal of Cenvat Credit to those who paid excise duty on metalized plastic films until 02nd February 2004. As the disputed period extended beyond this date, the Revenue argued that the assessee-Appellants were not entitled to retain the Cenvat Credit, necessitating its reversal. 4. The Revenue justified its demand for the reversal of Cenvat Credit by highlighting the issuance of the aforementioned notification and the ineligibility of the assessee-Appellants to retain the credit beyond the specified date. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that the credit had already been utilized for payment of duty on the finished products, rendering the Revenue's demand redundant. 5. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Creative Enterprises, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The precedent established that if duty had been paid using the availed credit, the reversal of such credit was unwarranted. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants.
|
