2025 (2) TMI 1107 - HC - Central Excise

Benefit of a specific notification regarding duty payment on goods transferred for job work - whether the concept of revenue neutrality based on CENVAT Credit could exempt the appellant from paying duty? - revenue neutrality - HELD THAT - All the three authorities i.e. the adjudicating authority the appellate authority and the Tribunal have concurrently found that the appellant was not entitled to any relief based on the plea sought to be raised pertaining to the fact that as claimed the moulds which were cleared without payment of duty for getting the job work done were returned back and consumed in the appellant s factory and on account of the purported revenue neutrality. Exhaustive discussions and reasons have been indicated for negating the plea as raised by the appellant. Once the goods leave the factory even for job work the Notification had no applicability. The finding recorded in this regard cannot be faulted inasmuch merely because the goods in question which were cleared without payment of duty were again used by the appellant for production of finished goods the fact that the same could be finished goods also cannot be ruled out and therefore the submissions made in this regard have rightly been negated. Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT - Plea of revenue neutrality based on the fact that the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT Credit has also rightly been denied by the Tribunal as accepting the said proposition would negate the very scheme of CENVAT Credit as every assessee for non payment of duty would claim that on account of entitlement to claim CENVAT Credit the duty was not paid. Once the plea raised pertains to revenue neutrality the same plea is sufficient for holding the appellant guilty inasmuch there was no reason in the given case not to pay the duty at the time of clearance of the goods when they were being sent for job work as required under the law. Conclusion - i) Specific notifications and credit schemes should not be used to circumvent duty payment obligations. ii) Once the plea raised pertains to revenue neutrality the same plea is sufficient for holding the appellant guilty inasmuch there was no reason in the given case not to pay the duty at the time of clearance of the goods when they were being sent for job work as required under the law. There are no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal upholding the concurrent findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and appellate authority - appeal dismissed.

Summary

1. Issues Presented and Considered:
The core legal questions considered in this case include whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of a specific notification regarding duty payment on goods transferred for job work, and whether the concept of revenue neutrality based on CENVAT Credit could exempt the appellant from paying duty.

2. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Benefit of Notification No. 67/95CE
- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellant claimed entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95CE dated 16.03.1995, which was a key legal provision in question.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the notification applied only to goods produced and used within the factory, not to goods sent out for job work. Thus, the notification was deemed inapplicable in this case.
- Key evidence and findings: The goods in question were cleared without duty payment for job work but were later returned to the appellant's factory. However, the Tribunal concluded that the goods could have become finished goods, making the notification inapplicable.
- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal's interpretation was based on the specific language and scope of the notification, which did not extend to goods sent out for job work.
- Conclusions: The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim for the benefit of the notification, upholding the lower authorities' decisions.

Issue 2: Revenue Neutrality and CENVAT Credit
- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The concept of revenue neutrality and the utilization of CENVAT Credit were central to this issue.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that allowing the appellant to avoid duty payment based on CENVAT Credit would undermine the purpose of the credit scheme, as it could lead to widespread non-payment of duties.
- Key evidence and findings: The appellant argued that paying duty would not impact its finances due to the availability of CENVAT Credit. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument to maintain the integrity of duty payment requirements.
- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to duty payment obligations regardless of potential credit availability to prevent abuse of the system.
- Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's plea for revenue neutrality based on CENVAT Credit, affirming the necessity of duty payment at the time of goods clearance.

3. Significant Holdings:
- The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the need to uphold duty payment requirements to prevent abuse of the system.
- The core principle established was that specific notifications and credit schemes should not be used to circumvent duty payment obligations.
- Final determinations on each issue favored the revenue authorities, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.