2023 (10) TMI 878 - HC - Central Excise

Entitlement to avail the credit of duty paid by the input supplier - correctness of denial of credit on the ground that the activity as the input supplier end was a non-manufacturing activity and thus the input supplier should not have paid the duty. HELD THAT - In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that even if the activity at the end of the input supplier has been held to be a non-manufacturing activity, the input recipient would be entitled to the credit of the duty so paid by the input manufacturer and rightly set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III Commissionerate, Gurgaon, for recovery of inadmissible Cenvat Credit of Rs.43,55,22,721/- alongwith interest (Annexure A-7). No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The present appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi was made by the revenue. The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to avail the credit of duty paid by the input supplier.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Credit of Duty Paid by Input Supplier
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent, M/s. AGR Steel Strips Pvt. Ltd., against the recovery of inadmissible CENVAT Credit imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The respondent had purchased raw material from an input supplier who had paid the duty, enabling the respondent to avail CENVAT credit for central excise duty payment on manufactured goods. The question was whether the recipient could avail credit even if the input supplier was not required to pay duty. Reference was made to a Delhi High Court decision and subsequent circulars clarifying the non-manufacturing nature of certain activities. The Tribunal rightly allowed the appeal, stating that the input recipient was entitled to the credit of duty paid by the input manufacturer.

Issue 2: Legal Precedents and Circulars
The judgment referred to legal precedents such as the Delhi High Court case of Faridabad Iron & Steel Traders Association and the Gujarat High Court case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Ahmedabad-III vs. Nahar Granities Ltd. These cases emphasized the right of the purchaser to avail CENVAT credit if duty has been paid by the input supplier, even if the duty was not required to be paid. The Division Bench of the Court also upheld the withdrawal of circulars indicating non-manufacturing activities, supporting the respondent's entitlement to the credit.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal of the respondent, confirming their entitlement to the credit of duty paid by the input supplier. No substantial question of law was found to arise for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the present appeal. The judgment clarified the rights of the purchaser to avail CENVAT credit based on duty paid by the input supplier, in line with relevant legal precedents and circulars.