9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Seven Star Steels Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, Customs & S. Tax, BBSR II [2013 (5) TMI 119 - CESTAT KOLKATA] by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chitrakoot Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2007 (11) TMI 135 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] had allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. CBEC vide Instruction F.No.96/85/2015/CX.I dated 07.12.2015 has observed, on the reversal of cenvat credit in respect of services paid on the input services that Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not provide for reversal in respect of input services for a reason. Input services are consumed once the inputs and capital goods are received in the factory. Thus on receipt of inputs and capital goods, the associat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used for procurement and inward transportation of above input materials, in terms of Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Subsequently, certain quantities of above input materials were removed as such by the appellant to its other sister units during the period 2011-12, for use in manufacture of final products i.e. writing and printing paper by those units. The said input materials were removed as such by the appellant under the cover of invoices, on payment of an amount equal to the credit taken in terms of Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Show-cause notice dated 05.02.2015 was issued to disallow and recover cenvat credit of ₹ 2,09,739/- alleged to have availed irregularly along with interest and to impose penalty. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h sides and perused the appeal records. 6. I find that the assessee had cleared 2245.640 MT of inputs, viz., Pulp, Lime Sodium Chlorate etc. as such, to its sister unit. For procuring these quantities, the appellant had received Port and GTA services and availed cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 50,551/- and ₹ 1,59,188/- paid on such Port services and GTA services respectively treating them as input services. The assessee had also utilized the said cenvat credit so availed towards payment of Central Excise duty payable on the final product cleared from the factory. It is the case of the Revenue that since the assessee did not use the inputs in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods and accordingly, the services used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rules so that reversal of credit taken on input services can also be achieved. Discussion Decision The conference noted that Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not provide for reversal in respect of input services for a reason. Input services are consumed once the inputs and capital goods are received in the factory. Thus on receipt of inputs and capital goods, the associated input services have to be considered as consumed within the factory and become a cost to the business. Demand for reversal o the input services credit, when such input services cannot be reused, unlike inputs and capital goods which are available for reuse would not be fair to the trade. Therefore, the conference concluded that the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letion of the said process, iron ore fines were generated. It is the case of the Revenue that these iron ore fines were not used in the manufacture of their final product, namely, sponge iron, but were sold in the market. Therefore, since the iron ores were sold as such without being used in the manufacture of products, proportionately the Cenvat credit availed on GTA services for bringing iron ore to the factory were required to be reversed under Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I do not find merit in the said allegation of the Department on two counts; firstly, the input iron ores after being brought to the factory, were subjected to the process of screening and process of screening as explained by their ld. Advocate, would definit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the terms specifically and used the same in different provisions consciously, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that merely by analogy even if in one provision both the terms have been used, the same should be read in the other provision as well, where it has not been specifically mentioned, has no legs to stand, as the tax cannot be levied merely by inference or presumption. It is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. Words cannot be added or substituted so as to give a particular meaning. ...... 6 . The same view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Chitrakoot Steel Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Chennai (cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
