9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 378 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - waste/scrap - the waste and scrap generated during repair and maintenance of the plant and machinery, which is out of capital goods, on which Cenvat credit has been taken - Rule 3(5A)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - This Tribunal has already considered this issue in the appellant s own case M/S SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. DAMAN 2017 (11) TMI 760 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD whereby the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for verification. In the present appeal also though the appellant has submitted invoices of the capital goods, other steel material purchased by them from which the scrap was generated, on which no Cenvat credit was taken. However, the Adjudicating Authority have not carried out any verification and confirmed the demand - the matter should be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Authority by verifying the fact that appellant have not availed Cenvat credit on the capital goods and other steel materials from which the waste and scrap is generated. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Whether duty is required to be paid on waste and scrap generated during repair and maintenance of plant and machinery? - Applicability of Rule 3(5A)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Verification of the fact that waste and scrap generated is out of capital goods or other materials on which no Cenvat credit is taken. - Consideration of previous Tribunal orders in similar cases. Analysis: 1. The case involved the issue of whether duty is required to be paid on waste and scrap generated during the repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of sugar, cleared scrap without duty payment under sale invoices. The department contended that as the scrap was generated from capital goods on which Cenvat credit was taken, duty was required to be paid as per Rule 3(5A)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, leading to the present appeal. 2. The appellant argued through their counsel that the waste and scrap cleared was not generated from capital goods on which Cenvat credit was taken, thus Rule 3(5A)(b) was not applicable. They cited various judgments to support their claim. Additionally, they highlighted a previous Tribunal order remanding a similar matter for verification of whether the waste and scrap was from capital goods or other materials without Cenvat credit. 3. The Adjudicating Authority had not verified whether the waste and scrap was generated from capital goods on which no Cenvat credit was taken, despite the appellant providing invoices for the capital goods and other steel materials. The Tribunal noted that a previous order in the appellant's case had remanded a similar matter for verification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for verification of the Cenvat credit status on the materials generating waste and scrap. 4. The Tribunal's decision focused on the necessity of verifying whether Cenvat credit was availed on the capital goods and other materials from which waste and scrap were generated. The issue of limitation was also left open for consideration. By remanding the case, the Tribunal ensured that the Adjudicating Authority would reevaluate the matter based on the requirement to establish the absence of Cenvat credit on the materials in question.
|
