9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y disclosing the complete facts and has been paying duty from time to time on clearance of final products which is also not disputed by the department - Appellants have also produced ER-1 returns for the disputed period wherein the details of CENVAT credit availed in respect of inputs and the duty paid on the final products are clearly shown - Further, in total, the appellants have availed CENVAT credit to the tune of 90,89,714/- during the relevant period but had paid an amount of 97,41,477/- which is more than the credit availed by them. This issue is squarely covered by the decision in ASHOK ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [ 2007 (11) TMI 67 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] where it was held that even if duty wasn t payable on final good (there being no manufacture), there was no question of recovery of credit, having been utilized towards payment of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. He further submitted that the following facts are not in dispute in the present case. (i) Appellants are engaged in the activity of cutting/slitting of Brass Strips, Phosphor Bronze Strips and Copper Strips falling under Chapter subheading 7409 2100, 7409 1100 and 7409 3100 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) Appellants had availed CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs received in coil form; (iii) Appellants, after converting the coils into strips by undertaking operations of slitting/cutting had cleared the finished goods viz., strips on payment of duty by utilizing CENVAT credit availed on the inputs as also in cash. 4.1 He further submitted that the appellant had obtained Central Excise Registration under bona fide impression that the activity of slitting of coils of various items into strips amounted to manufacturing activity within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and while applying for registration, the appellant had disclosed complete facts to the department. After obtaining the registration, the appellant availed CENVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs and cleared their final products viz., strips on payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants were otherwise entitled to avail credit and pass on the credit as a trader as held by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Bangalore in the appellant's own case in Final Order No.631/2010 dated 28.10.2009. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner has rightly denied the CENVAT credit to the appellant because the activity carried on by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and the appellant has wrongly availed the CENVAT credit on the inputs. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * CCE, Jamshedpur vs. Castings (India) Inc.: 2016 (342) ELT 343 (Jhar.) * CCE, Mumbai vs. Rajpurohit GMP India Ltd.: 2008 (231) ELT 577 (SC) * Anil Dang vs. CCE, Vapi: 2007 (213) ELT 29 (Tri.-LB) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the appellant is engaged in the activity of cutting and slitting of Brass Strips, Phosphor Bronze Strips and Copper Strips falling under Chapter Sub-heading 7409 2100, 7409 1100 and 7409 3100 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. We also find that while procuring the raw materials, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that even if duty was not payable on the finished goods (there being no manufacture), there was no question of recovery of any credit having been utilized towards payment of such duty. In our final order dated 30-7-2007 ibid, we also observed that the decision rendered as early as on 9-12-2003 by the Tribunal in Syndet India case had been accepted by the Revenue and, therefore, it was not open to them to deny the CENVAT credit. The view taken by us in the case of Super Forgings and Steels Ltd. (supra) is squarely in support of the appellants' case." 6.1 Further, in the case of Vickers Systems International cited supra, the Division Bench of the Tribunal in identical case has held in para 16 and 17 which is as under: "16. The assessee in the case of CCE v. Piramal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 322 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 741 (T) took the credit of the duty paid on the processed fabric. The processed fabric was then subjected to the processes such as cutting, folding and packing. The credit taken on the processed fabric was utilized for the payment of duty on the packed fabric cleared by the assessee. The Department denied the credit taken on the proces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
