2018 (8) TMI 1677 - HC - Central Excise

MODVAT Credit - Whether MODVAT Credit can be availed on the inputs used in manufacture of goods exempted by virtue of Rule 57F(3) and Notification 214/86-CE dated 01.3.1986? - Whether the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in applying the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in M/s.Sterlite Industries Limited 2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT MUMBAI to this case? Held that - In Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT an identical issue came up for consideration wherein also the Tribunal relied the decision in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. 2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT MUMBAI - The Hon ble Division Bench noted that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. was approved by the Hon ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. 2008 (8) TMI 783 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of MODVAT Credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods
- Applicability of Larger Bench decision in a specific case

Analysis:

1. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether MODVAT Credit could be availed on inputs used in the manufacture of goods exempted by Rule 57F(3) and Notification 214/86-CE dated 01.3.1986. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing nylon tyre cord fabrics, had cleared goods on payment of duty and without duty under specific rules. The Department sought to disallow credit on inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods. The Tribunal, following the Larger Bench decision in Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd., held that the job worker was entitled to avail MODVAT/CENVAT Credit on inputs used in both categories of final products, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

2. The second issue revolved around the correctness of applying the Larger Bench decision in the case at hand. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not obtain a stay on the Larger Bench's decision. The respondent cited the Division Bench's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai IV Vs. Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd., which upheld the Larger Bench's decision. The Division Bench referred to other judgments affirming the Larger Bench's decision, including a case involving one of the judges. Ultimately, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order, confirming the decision in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

3. The High Court's detailed analysis highlighted the consistency in decisions across various forums, emphasizing the approval of the Larger Bench's decision by the Bombay High Court and other Division Benches. The Court's thorough examination of precedents and the Tribunal's reasoning led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents in tax matters, providing clarity on the availment of credits in the context of exempted goods manufacturing.