2017 (10) TMI 1225 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - credit taken was disputed by the Department on the ground that the inputs used in the trial production were converted into waste and scrap; and that since the goods were not used for manufacture of finished goods - Held that - As per the statutory provisions, taking of Cenvat Credit is subject to the condition that the inputs and capital goods are received in the factory of manufacture of final product. In this case, the fact is not under dispute that the disputed goods were received in the factory and intended for use in the manufacture of excisable final product. Since the appellant commenced its manufacturing activities on trial basis and commissioning of its plant facilities, those goods were used in such trial run. Accordingly, after use in the manufacturing processes, the inputs became waste. Since, the goods have been put to use for the intended purpose and admittedly received in the factory of manufacture, the requirement of Rule 3 ibid has been duly complied with for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over availing Cenvat Credit for goods used in trial production.
- Interpretation of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Applicability of Cenvat benefit when goods used in trial run become waste.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the appellant, engaged in manufacturing color picture tubes, availing Cenvat Credit for duties paid on inputs and capital goods used in trial production. The appellant, an EHTP unit, received duty-free goods but paid appropriate Central Excise Duty upon de-bonding. The Department disputed Cenvat Credit claiming the goods used in trial production turned into waste and scrap, thus not eligible for credit.

2. The appellant argued compliance with Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, stating the disputed goods were received for use in manufacturing the final product, even if not resulting in marketable finished goods. Citing precedents, the appellant contended that the Cenvat benefit should not be denied. Conversely, the respondent maintained that since the goods were used only in the trial run and not for finished goods, Cenvat benefit should be denied.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 3, emphasizing that Cenvat Credit is subject to goods being received in the factory for manufacturing the final product. Acknowledging the goods were intended for use in manufacturing, the Tribunal noted that even though the goods became waste after the trial run, the requirement of Rule 3 was fulfilled. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant complied with Rule 3 by using the goods in the trial run for the intended purpose of manufacturing, entitling them to Cenvat Credit. The judgment highlighted that even if the goods turned into waste during the trial production, the benefit could not be denied. The decision was based on the interpretation of the rules and past precedents, ultimately favoring the appellant in the dispute over availing Cenvat Credit for goods used in trial production.