2023 (8) TMI 601 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - imported inputs - inputs were not received in the factory and cleared out-and-out from the place of import to the customers premises - processes undertaken by the appellant on the inputs amounts to manufacture or not - HELD THAT - The approach of the Department is ambivalent and not clear as which charge they intend to pursue for denying the cenvat credit availed by the appellant on imported inputs. Both stands taken by the Department are contrary to each other. If the Department alleges that the inputs were not received in the factory and leads evidence in this regard, then there was no need to make an allegation that after receipt of the inputs in the factory, the inputs then subjected to certain processes do not result into manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Assailing the stand of the Department that the inputs have not been received in the factory, the learned advocate for the appellant furnished data relating to activity of manufacture carried out by them i.e. amounts spent on electricity consumption, fuel consumption, factory overheads etc., which indicate that processes on the inputs were undertaken in their factory premises after the inputs brought into their factory. Also, the statements of two transporters relied upon by the learned Commissioner do not inspire confidence inasmuch as further investigation was not carried out by the Department and the transporters have not categorically claimed to have not transported the goods during the period they have employed by the appellant. Besides, the statements of two transporters among 13 to 14 transporters cannot be generalised and made applicable to the entire period - the alternative argument pursued by the Department in denying the credit that the processes do not result into manufacture needs to be examined. In THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS AJINKYA ENTERPRISES 2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the Bombay High Court taking note of the arguments of the Revenue more or less in the same line observed that Once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. There are no merit in the impugned orders - the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the denial of cenvat credit on imported inputs by the Department on the grounds that the inputs were not received in the factory and that the processes undertaken on the inputs did not result in manufacture.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Inputs not received in the factory
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, imported 7/8 Radio Frequency (RF) Cables and converted them into Jumper Cables and RF Feeder Cables. The Department alleged that the inputs were not received in the factory, based on statements of transporters. The appellant argued that processes were carried out in their factory, evidenced by expenses incurred, and duty was paid on the final products. The Tribunal found the Department's approach ambivalent and contradictory, as they also alleged that the processes did not result in manufacture. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the evidence provided by the Department and transporters, leading to a lack of confidence in the Department's claims.

Issue 2: Processes not resulting in manufacture
The Department alternatively claimed that even if the inputs were received in the factory, the processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture. The appellant argued that once duty was paid on the final products, cenvat credit on inputs should not be denied. The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including the Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, which held that if duty on final products is accepted, cenvat credit need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. Following this settled principle of law, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and set aside the orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, based on the established legal principles regarding cenvat credit and manufacture.