2018 (8) TMI 889 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs - credit denied on premise that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture - Held that - The fact is on record that the appellant is purchasing raw CI castings and doing certain processes on that, namely, shot blasted, grinding, erasing, chipping, painting, oiling, proof machining and measuring, thereafter, they sold to their buyers. As without these processes, these CI Castings are not usable by their customers, therefore, in terms of under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section VI of 17 Central Excise Act, 1985, the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture - Cenvat credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat Credit on inputs due to the activity not amounting to manufacture.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order denying Cenvat Credit on inputs, arguing that their activity of manufacturing CI castings and Motor Vehicle Parts should be considered as manufacture. The appellant mainly used Pig Iron and Iron Scrap as raw materials. The audit revealed that the appellant also purchased CI castings from other manufacturers and availed Cenvat Credit on the duty paid for such castings. The dispute arose when it was alleged that since the appellant purchased CI Castings and sold them as is, the activity did not amount to manufacture, hence they were not entitled to Cenvat Credit on these castings.

A show cause notice was issued, leading to an adjudication where it was held that the appellant's activity did not amount to manufacture, resulting in the denial of Cenvat Credit on CI Castings along with imposition of interest and penalty. The appellant contended that their activity should be considered as manufacture based on the change in the essential character of raw material, making it usable for further processes. They also argued that the duty payment on CI Castings should be seen as a reversal of Cenvat Credit, citing a relevant High Court decision.

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appellant performed various processes on raw CI castings to make them usable as Motor Vehicle Parts, which rendered the activity as manufacture under the Central Excise Act. Additionally, since the appellant cleared the CI Castings by paying duty, the duty payment was considered as a reversal of Cenvat Credit, aligning with the High Court decision referenced by the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order denying Cenvat Credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.