2022 (5) TMI 709 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of the goods lying outside the factory premises - old and used Moulds supplied by some other manufacturers - demand on C.I. Moulds manufactured on job work basis from the old and used moulds supplied by the principal supplier under Notification No.214/86 dated 25.03.1986 - Whether demand of duty on the coal stored outside the factory premises on which no Cenvat credit was taken is liable for confiscation and whether the Cenvat credit can be denied on such coal? - time limitation - suppression of facts or not. Goods allegedly lying outside the factory premises whether liable for confiscation or not - HELD THAT - As per the facts of the case which is not under dispute that the appellant have applied for extension of ground plan for inclusion of the premises where the goods were lying well in advance and subsequently, the ground plan was approved. Therefore, it cannot be said that the goods were lying outside the factory. Moreover, the appellant received the old and used moulds for the purpose of job work in their factory under Notification No.214/86-CE therefore, no cenvat credit was taken on such goods accordingly, such goods cannot be treated as excisable goods hence, no question arise for confiscation of the goods - neither confiscation is legal nor the duty demanded on such goods is correct. Demand on C.I. Mould which was manufactured on job work basis in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE - HELD THAT - As per the undisputed facts, the various suppliers were supplying the old and used moulds to the appellant for converting into new mould and returning it back to the principal supplier. In this regard all the suppliers have filed a declaration as required under Notification 214/86-CE. This arrangement is permissible under which the job worker is exempted from payment of any excise duty in terms of notification No.214/86-CE. - All the documents and records clearly show that the appellant have received the old and used moulds and converted into fresh mould and returned back to the supplier of old and used mould for which they merely charged the job work charges. Whether old and used mould/scrap can be cleared under Rule 4(5)(a) or not - HELD THAT - It is no longer under dispute as per the various judgments cited by the appellant. It is a settled law that manufacturer for the purpose of manufacturing their goods can clear their own generated scrap to the job worker and get the finished goods manufactured out of it in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE. - there are no reason why the department has proceeded to demand duty from the appellant when all the records and facts as revealed from the investigation clearly shows that the appellant have involved in job work of making C.I. Mould from old and used mould/scrap supplied by their principal manufacturer - there are no hesitation in holding that the demand on this count is not sustainable. Denial of Cenvat credit and the ground that the same was lying outside the factory - HELD THAT - Firstly, the appellant had not taken the cenvat credit when the goods were lying stored outside, the credit was taken only after taking the coal into the factory therefore, there is no violation of any Cenvat Credit Rules. Secondly, the coal was lying outside the factory but it was lying within the premises which is owned by the appellant only - the appellant had applied for inclusion of the said premises in the factory premises even before storing the goods and subsequently, the permission was granted and the said premises deemed to have been part and parcel of the registered premises of the appellant. For this reason also the Cenvat credit on coal cannot be denied. Since the demand itself is not sustainable, penalty on the main appellant as well as co-appellant is also not sustainable. Time Limitation - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - The appellants have strongly raised the defence on limitation on the ground that the job work transactions were clearly declared in the monthly ER-1 return therefore, there is no suppression of fact - limitation aspect is not decided upon, as the issue is decided in merits itself. The entire demand made against the appellant and the confiscation of goods is not legal and correct hence the same is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods lying outside the factory premises and demand for duty.
2. Demand on C.I. Moulds manufactured on job work basis.
3. Demand of duty on coal stored outside the factory premises and denial of Cenvat credit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of Goods and Duty Demand
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing C.I. Castings Moulds, facing demands of excise duty and cenvat credit. The investigation revealed that the appellant received old and used C.I. Moulds for job work under Notification No. 214/86. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that the goods received were for job work purposes, supported by relevant declarations. The Tribunal held that the goods were not liable for confiscation as they were used for job work within the factory premises, and no duty was payable on them. The demand and confiscation were deemed unsustainable due to the legitimate use of the goods in manufacturing.

Issue 2: Demand on C.I. Moulds Manufactured on Job Work Basis
The department alleged that the appellant cleared fresh goods disguised as old and used moulds converted through job work. However, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim. The appellant received old moulds, converted them into fresh moulds, and returned them to the supplier, following all prescribed procedures. The department failed to substantiate their allegations, and all transactions were conducted transparently. The demand for duty on this basis was deemed unsustainable by the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Demand of Duty on Coal and Denial of Cenvat Credit
Regarding the demand on coal stored outside the factory premises and denial of Cenvat credit, the Tribunal found the appellant had not availed credit until the coal was brought inside the factory. The coal was stored within premises owned by the appellant, approved for inclusion in the factory premises. As the demand itself was unsustainable, the denial of Cenvat credit was also rejected. The Tribunal concluded that the entire demand against the appellant and the confiscation of goods were not legally sound, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the legitimate use of goods for job work, lack of evidence supporting duty demands, and proper compliance with regulations. The decision emphasized the importance of transparent transactions and adherence to prescribed procedures in excise matters.