2017 (9) TMI 547 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - process amounting to manufacture or not? - manufacture of profiles, shapes and sections of various machines /machineries - Revenue was of the view that the process undertaken in the factory by the appellant simply changes the form or size of the inputs plates, sheets etc. The finished product as well as inputs remain classified under the same CEH and accordingly, they were of the view that the processes do not amount to manufacture and consequently, the cenvat credit availed by the appellant on the inputs were improper - Held that - It is evident on perusal of some of the photographs of these products that processes undertaken in the factory do result in new and distinct products and such process can be considered as process of manufacture, even if the inputs as well as final products are classifiable in the same CTH - Once it is held that process amounts to manufacture, there can be no justification to deny cenvat credit on the inputs. In any case, it is settled position of law that even if the activity undertaken does not amount to manufacture, when duty is levied, the credit cannot be denied by upholding that there is no manufacture. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the activities undertaken by the appellant amount to manufacture for availing cenvat credit on duty paid inputs.
2. Whether the impugned order denying cenvat credit is sustainable.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were engaged in manufacturing profiles, shapes, and sections of various machines as per customer requirements, availing cenvat credit on duty paid inputs. The Revenue contended that the processes undertaken merely changed the form or size of inputs, and hence did not amount to manufacture, leading to a demand for reversal of cenvat credit. The Tribunal observed that the processes resulted in new and distinct products like MS profiles, rings, circles, channels, and angles, qualifying as manufacturing processes. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents and held that even if the activity did not strictly amount to manufacture, when duty was levied, the credit could not be denied. The decision highlighted that the process of manufacture justified availing cenvat credit on inputs, ultimately setting aside the impugned order.

2. The Tribunal considered arguments from both sides, where the appellant's counsel emphasized the creation of new products through factory processes, justifying cenvat credit reversal at the time of final product clearance. The Revenue, however, supported the impugned order and cited a Tribunal decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal, after examining the record and product photographs, concluded that the activities in the factory did result in new and distinct products, qualifying as manufacturing processes. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that denying cenvat credit when duty was levied was not justifiable, irrespective of whether the activity strictly met the definition of manufacture. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the definition of manufacture concerning the availing of cenvat credit on duty paid inputs and establishes that the processes undertaken by the appellants indeed amounted to manufacturing activities. The decision emphasizes the importance of considering the creation of new and distinct products through factory processes, ultimately leading to the reversal of the impugned order denying cenvat credit.