2019 (12) TMI 711 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input/capital goods - TMT Bars - credit denied on the ground that the TMT bars are not inputs or capital goods for the appellant but are final products which they purchased and further traded - Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - reversal of credit on the goods that were brought into the factory - revenue neutrality. Whether finished goods brought into the factory from outside would entitle the manufacturer to take Cenvat credit or otherwise? - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra as it has been decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I VERSUS ICEBERG FOODS LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 987 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD VERSUS DEY S MEDICAL (P) LTD. 2009 (12) TMI 387 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI that Cenvat credit is not admissible on the final products brought into the factory. It has also been decided that the provisions of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 apply to goods which are brought back into the factory for processing, re-conditioning, etc., and not to final products brought in for sale. There are no provision, whatsoever, under CCR, 2004 to allow any manufacturer to avail Cenvat credit on the final products purchased by them from one party and sold to another. CCR provide for credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services. Undisputedly, the TMT bars in question do not fall under any of these categories. In the absence of any explicit legal provisions for availment of Cenvat credit, the appellant is not entitled to Cenvat credit on TMT bars. Applicability of rule 16 of CER - HELD THAT - Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 do not apply to cases where goods are brought into the factory for resale - This rule applies only to cases where the goods are used for repairing, re-conditioning, etc. Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT - In the scheme of Cenvat or VAT or present day GST, all taxes paid at various levels get set off at the next level except at the final stage where the customer pays the tax and bears its burden. However, this does not give anyone freedom to choose not to pay their duties or take credit in violation of the Act or rules putting forth the argument that such non payment would be revenue neutral because their customers who would have taken the Cenvat credit will not do so now - Fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly as they are drafted without an intendment. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to Cenvat credit on TMT bars purchased and sold as final products.
- Applicability of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 to goods brought into the factory for resale.
- Interpretation of CCR, 2004 regarding availment of Cenvat credit on final products.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of TMT bars, availed Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2004, on TMT bars purchased from other manufacturers and sold under their brand name. A show cause notice was issued proposing to deny Cenvat credit on the TMT bars, alleging they were final products, not inputs or capital goods. The lower authorities confirmed the demands, imposed penalties, and interest. The appellant appealed on grounds of entitlement to Cenvat credit under Rule 16(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the revenue-neutral nature of the process.

2. The departmental representative argued that the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit on TMT bars, as they were neither inputs nor capital goods, violating CCR, 2004. He emphasized that the rules provide for credit only on specific categories, and the appellant's actions did not comply with the prescribed process. The representative cited precedents to support the denial of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalties under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004.

3. The Tribunal considered whether bringing finished goods into the factory entitled the manufacturer to Cenvat credit. Precedents, including Iceberg Foods Ltd and Dey's Medical Pvt Ltd, established that Cenvat credit was not admissible on final products brought into the factory. The Tribunal found no provision in CCR, 2004 allowing manufacturers to claim Cenvat credit on final products purchased and resold. Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was deemed inapplicable to goods brought in for resale, emphasizing its scope for processing or re-conditioning only.

4. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument of revenue neutrality, emphasizing strict interpretation of fiscal statutes without room for arbitrary schemes to avoid duties. Citing the case of M/s Dilip Kumar & Co., the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit on TMT bars. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal provisions in tax matters.