2015 (12) TMI 1395 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - No manufacturing activity is done - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit to the respondent on the ground that once the duty has been paid on the final product, the same should be treated as reversal of the ineligible credit taken on the inputs and there is no requirement for insisting the assessee again to pay/ reverse the cenvat credit. I find that the observations of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are in conformity with Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which provides that in case of removal of inputs as such from the factory, the manufacturer of final products shall pay an amount equal to the credit taken in respect of the inputs. Further, I find that the dispute in the present case has arisen because of the fact of taking cenvat credit on the disputed inputs used for conversion of the final product. Assuming that no credit has been taken for the activities not amounting to manufacture then there was no scope for payment of any Central Excise Duty on removal of final product. However, since the final product has suffered duty, reversal of credit taken by the Respondent on the inputs will not result in any loss of Revenue to the Government exchequer. - no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the impugned order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh.
- Challenge regarding the input on which cenvat credit was taken and the final product manufactured in the factory.
- Interpretation of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Reversal of cenvat credit taken on disputed goods.
- Utilization of credit for clearance of finished products.
- Application of relevant case laws in determining the legality of credit taken on inputs.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh, where cenvat demand, interest, and penalty were set aside. The impugned order allowed the appeal in favor of the respondent based on the argument that even if the conversion process of SE Copper Wire into small spools did not amount to manufacture, since duty was paid on the final product, it should be considered as a reversal of ineligible credit on the inputs.

2. The Revenue's challenge was centered on the contention that the input for which cenvat credit was claimed and the final product were not distinct commodities. They argued that as no manufacturing activity occurred in the factory, taking cenvat credit on the disputed goods was not in line with the Cenvat Credit Rules, necessitating the reversal of the credit.

3. The Revenue relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their stance, emphasizing that in the absence of manufacturing activity, the credit on inputs should be reversed. However, the Respondent's advocate argued that the credit on disputed goods was utilized for clearing finished products, complying with Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and thus, no additional credit reversal was required.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the impugned order and found it in accordance with Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, stating that when duty is paid on the final product, it effectively reverses any ineligible credit on the inputs. The Tribunal noted that while no credit was taken for non-manufacturing activities, the duty paid on the final product negated the need for further credit reversal, aligning with previous decisions cited by the Respondent.

5. After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, concluding that there was no flaw in it. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding support for its decision in the relevant provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules and the interpretations provided by previous tribunal decisions referenced by the Respondent.