2018 (12) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - case of the department is that since no manufacture process was being done in the appellant s premises, they are not eligible for Cenvat credit either on the inputs or on the capital goods - Held that - The manufacturing done by the job workers is treated as manufacturing of the assessee himself. Even, as per N/N. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, in case of job worker, the principal manufacturer is required to pay duty - since the final product is cleared by the assessee as if it is manufacturing the excisable goods by them, they are clearly entitled for Cenvat credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on inputs/raw materials and capital goods due to manufacturing process carried out by job workers.
2. Disallowance of Cenvat credit by the department based on Rule 3(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules.
3. Appeal against the denovo order confirming demand, interest, and penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of Cenvat credit on inputs/raw materials and capital goods due to manufacturing process carried out by job workers:
The case involved a situation where the appellant's factory premises faced destruction due to a fire incident, leading to the cessation of operations. The appellant continued business by outsourcing manufacturing to job workers. The department contended that since no manufacturing process occurred at the appellant's premises, they were not entitled to Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods. However, the Tribunal ruled that as per Cenvat Credit Rules, the appellant could claim credit for inputs and capital goods used in job work manufacturing. The Tribunal emphasized that manufacturing by job workers on behalf of the appellant was considered equivalent to the appellant's manufacturing. The Tribunal referred to Notification No. 214/86-CE, stating that the principal manufacturer, in this case, the appellant, was responsible for duty payment, thereby entitling them to Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and the appellant's appeal, which was withdrawn.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Cenvat credit based on Rule 3(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules:
The department had issued show cause notices proposing disallowance of Cenvat credit to the appellant, citing Rule 3(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Despite the Additional Commissioner dropping the show cause notices, the department appealed the decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case for fresh adjudication, leading to a denovo order confirming the demand, interest, and penalty. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appellant's appeal against this order, prompting the Revenue to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found no fault in the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit based on the job work manufacturing arrangement. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Appeal against the denovo order confirming demand, interest, and penalty:
The Additional Commissioner, in a denovo adjudication, had confirmed the demand, interest, and imposed a penalty on an individual. The appellant appealed this decision before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in favor of the appellant. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal's decision to uphold the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit on job work manufacturing rendered the appeal against the denovo order moot, leading to its dismissal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the eligibility of Cenvat credit for job work manufacturing, emphasizing the equivalence of such manufacturing to the principal manufacturer's operations. The decision provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and notifications supporting the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal and the withdrawn appeal by the appellant.

← Previous Next →