2017 (8) TMI 1034 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Manufacture or repair? - Some of the picture tubes were found to be defective and these were sent to the manufacturer for repair and after repair they were getting the picture tubes - denial of credit on the ground that the manufacturer of the picture tubes that is Samtel Colour Ltd., had in fact cleared new picture tubes and the picture tubes received by the appellants were not the same, which were returned as defective - Held that - this Court in a case relating to Central Excise has taken a view that this was not correct and the department had wrongly presumed that the picture tubes, which were being sent after repair were new ones or that the process of manufacture had taken place - appeal dismissed - decided against Department.

Summary

Issues:
Central Excise appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against an order of the Tribunal dated 2-3-2005 [2005 (191) E.L.T. 502 (Tribunal)] - Whether the Tribunal has committed illegality in recording the finding based on the decision in the case of CCE v. Samtel Colour Ltd. without referring to the evidence on record that the respondent had received the same picture tubes sent for repairs?

Analysis:

1. Issue of Tribunal's Finding: The Tribunal relied on a previous decision in the case of CCE v. Samtel Colour Ltd. where it was held that the activity undertaken by the respondent was repair and not manufacture. The appellant, in this case, had received color picture tubes from the manufacturer, availed credit for duty paid, sent defective tubes for repair, and received them back after repair. The Revenue contended that the tubes received after repair were not the same as those sent, alleging that new tubes were cleared by the manufacturer. However, the Court disagreed with this presumption, stating that the tubes sent for repair were not new ones, and the process of manufacture had not occurred.

2. Precedent and Final Conclusion: The Court referred to a previous case, Central Excise Appeal Defective No. 153 of 2004, where a similar issue was addressed, and the department's appeal was rejected in favor of the assessee. The Court emphasized that the department did not appeal against this decision, making it final. Therefore, based on the precedent and previous judgment, the Court answered the question of law in favor of the assessee and against the department.

3. Final Decision: Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted that no costs were to be incurred due to the nature of the decision. The final resolution of the case was based on the interpretation of the evidence and the application of legal principles, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding the rights of the assessee in the matter of Central Excise appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.