9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 354 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs - manufacture took place or not - HELD THAT - Even if the goods cleared by the appellant have not undergone manufacture, the consequent non-excisability would render the credit as not having been availed. It would, therefore, appear that the issue in dispute is limited to taking of credit on goods that are not inputs as defined in rule 2 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In re Ajinkya Enterprises 2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the Hon ble High Court of Bombay has held that in the present case, the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from the factory of the assessee on payment of duty has neither been reversed nor it is held that the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid at the time of clearing the decoiled HR/CR coils. In effect, therefore, the utilization of credit for cleared products is tantamount to reversal and, hence, recovery of such credit is an exercise in superfluity. These decisions were not available with the adjudicating authority then and has settled the law on recovery thereupon. Learned Authorized Representative has suggested that actual availment and corresponding substantive reversal need to be verified. Matter remanded back to the original authority for such verification and to limit recovery, if any, only to such credit as is in excess of that availed on procurement of the three products.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether goods cleared domestically and for export between 2007 and 2011 are liable to be charged to excise duty and if the appellant is eligible to avail credit on inputs procured from domestic sources and abroad, as well as credit on input services under rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Summary of the Judgment: Issue 1: Manufacture and Excisability of Goods The appellant, engaged in re-packing and labeling imported goods, argued that the activity amounts to manufacture and any recovery of duty is beyond the law. They contended that even if no manufacture occurred, the computation is revenue neutral. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and held that if goods have not undergone manufacture, the credit availed is not valid. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for verification of credit availed on the three products. Issue 2: Adjustment of Credit and Reversal The appellant argued that any credit taken has been offset at the time of clearance and should be constructively reversed as per rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Authorized Representative contended that no manufacture took place, rendering the duty collection unlawful. They emphasized the need for fresh verification of the credit details. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and emphasized that recovery of credit on non-manufactured goods is unnecessary. Issue 3: Legal Precedents and Recovery of Credit The Tribunal considered various legal precedents cited by both parties, including decisions from the High Courts and Supreme Court. It was noted that the utilization of credit for cleared products is equivalent to reversal, making the recovery of such credit redundant. The Tribunal directed the original authority to verify the actual availment and reversal of credit. In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original authority for verification and instructed to limit any recovery to the credit in excess of that availed on the procurement of the three products.
|
