2013 (4) TMI 277 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat Credit of duty paid by the Job worker - Whether the job workers can prefer to pay excise duty in spite of having exemption notification bearing no. 214 of 1986 - Held that - By relying upon a three-judge-bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of International Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bihar (2005 (3) TMI 132 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), submitted that the questions so raised by the Revenue are fully answered by the Supreme Court in the above decision and the selfsame principle has been followed by the Tribunal. There is no dispute that according to the modvat scheme, it is the modvat of such final product which would have to include the cost of the inputs and in respect of which Modvat credit could be taken at the time of clearance of the final product and thus, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal rightly rejected the contention of the Revenue that the respondents should have reversed the Cenvat credit taken before sending the goods to the job worker since the job worker had not followed the procedure of job work. No merit in the contention of the revenue that the job workers cannot prefer to pay excise duty in spite of having exemption notification bearing No. 214/86 exempting the job workers from paying duty in view of the mandatory provision of Section 5A(1A) of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee and against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Determination of common questions in appeals by Revenue against Tribunal's order
- Whether job workers can pay excise duty despite exemption notification
- Interpretation of job work versus sale scenario
- Allegation of dual benefit of credit by the assessee
- Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules by Tribunal

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard appeals by the Revenue against a common order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals concerned the respondents engaged in the manufacture of dyes and dye intermediates who sent raw materials to a job worker for conversion into intermediate goods. The Revenue contended that the manufacturer should have reversed Cenvat credit before sending goods to the job worker. The key questions raised were whether job workers could pay excise duty despite an exemption notification, whether the scenario constituted a sale rather than job work, and if there was dual benefit of credit availed by the assessee. The Tribunal's interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules was also challenged.

The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeals, while the respondents' counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the Tribunal's decision. The Court examined a similar case where the appellant used inputs from another entity in manufacturing assemblies and paid excise duty accordingly. The Supreme Court decision in that case clarified the application of Modvat scheme and the entitlement to credit. The Court emphasized the distinction between the manufacture of final products and intermediate products under the Modvat scheme.

Applying the principles from the Supreme Court decision to the present case, the High Court held that the Tribunal rightly rejected the Revenue's contention regarding reversal of Cenvat credit. The Court found no merit in the argument that job workers could not pay excise duty despite an exemption notification or that the scenario constituted a sale rather than job work. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the application of relevant legal principles.

Consequently, the Tax Appeal No. 1086 of 2010 was dismissed, with no order as to costs. Subsequently, the other appeal, Tax Appeal No. 1540 of 2010, related to the penalty imposed on the Director of the company and was also dismissed in light of the first appeal's decision.