9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 732 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit of inputs gone into generation - Remission of duty applied - destruction of Gelatin Mass Waste - bio-hazardous/waste product or not - HELD THAT - This Tribunal in their own case 2009 (3) TMI 370 - CESTAT, BANGALORE considering the Circular issued by the Board held in their favour observing that demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on the waste product is unsustainable in law. The said view has been later upheld by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court 2011 (4) TMI 212 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . In view of the aforesaid principle of law settled by the Hon ble High Court and later upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court 2012 (1) TMI 187 - SC ORDER by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue; there are no merit in the impugned order. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.135/2010-CE dated 25.4.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore.
Issue 1: Reversal of CENVAT credit on waste product The appellant, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical products, generated "Gelatin Mass Waste" during production, which they destroyed in compliance with relevant laws. The dispute arose when the department sought reversal of CENVAT credit used in manufacturing the waste product without seeking permission for destruction. The appellant argued that the waste product should not be considered excisable goods, citing previous Tribunal and High Court judgments in their favor. The Tribunal, referring to a Circular and the High Court judgment, held that demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on the waste product was unsustainable in law. The High Court further clarified that the waste, even if excisable, did not necessitate reversal of credit or payment of excise duty since it was destroyed within the factory premises. The Supreme Court also upheld this position, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. Final Decision: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the "Gelatin Mass Waste" generated during manufacturing, being a waste product, did not require reversal of CENVAT credit. The judgments of the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court supported this position, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.
|
