9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 65 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat demand alongwith interest - Cenvat credit irregularly availed on Ethanol from April, 2011 to March, 2012 - Held that - the issue is now fully covered in favour of the appellants. It is also noted that even in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd V/s CCE Delhi 2014 (9) TMI 974 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where originally there was difference of opinion between two members of the Tribunal, as per majority decision it was held that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to an assessee on the ground that manufacturer of final product was not required to pay duty by utilising the credit, as the activity at his end did not amount to manufacture. The said decision was later followed in Aurobindo Pharma Ltd V/s Commissioner of CE, Cus and ST Hyderabad-I 2015 (12) TMI 1399 - CESTAT BANGALORE . Therefore, by relying on the Tribunal judgment in the case of Neuland Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE Hyderabad-I 2013 (11) TMI 1339 - CESTAT BANGALORE which was appealed by Department before High Court and Hon ble A.P. High Court had dismissed the same reported in 2015 (10) TMI 1036 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT and the same has attained finality upto Hon ble Supreme court, it is seen that Commissioner (Appeals), in the appellant s own case, for different period July 2006 to May 2011, has allowed the appeals on identical issue. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues Involved:
1. Irregular availment of CENVAT credit on Ethanol 2. Classification of Ethanol under Central Excise Tariff Act 3. Appeal against Order in Original by Additional Commissioner of Customs 4. Tribunal judgment in the case of Neuland Laboratories Ltd. 5. Dismissal of Department appeal by Hon'ble A.P. High Court 6. Dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Supreme Court 7. Department conceding the issue 8. Applicability of CENVAT Credit rules 9. Precedents set by Tribunal decisions 10. Commissioner (Appeals) Orders in appellant's own case Analysis: 1. The case involved the irregular availment of CENVAT credit on Ethanol by the appellants, who were manufacturers of Bulk drugs, intermediates, and medicines. The Department observed that the appellants were receiving ethanol classified under various headings of the Central Excise Tariff Act, even though the product was exempted. A show cause notice was issued proposing the recovery of irregularly availed CENVAT credit. The Additional Commissioner of Customs confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. During the hearing, the Ld Advocate for appellant cited the Tribunal judgment in the case of Neuland Laboratories Ltd., where it was held that the obligation to determine duty liability does not fall on the receiver of goods. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals. The Department's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble A.P. High Court, and subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP filed by the department. 3. The Ld. AR for the Department conceded that the issue appealed by the Department had been dismissed by the Hon'ble A.P High Court. The Tribunal noted that the issue was fully covered in favor of the appellants, citing precedents such as the Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd case and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd case, where CENVAT credit could not be denied based on the final product manufacturer's duty payment. 4. Relying on the settled law by higher Courts, the Tribunal allowed the impugned appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per the law. The decision was based on the principles established in previous Tribunal judgments and the finality of the Neuland case law up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court level. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also allowed appeals on the same issue in the appellant's own case for a different period, further supporting the decision in favor of the appellants.
|
