Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter Heading 8544 of CETA, 1985. The appellant imported the inputs viz. 7/8 Radio Frequency (RF) Cables on payment of appropriate applicable customs duties on the same. The said inputs are processed and converted into two types viz. Jumper Cables and RF Feeder Cables. They have availed and utilised cenvat credit on various duties paid at the time of import, which were later utilised in the clearance of the finished goods, after carrying out the process like connectorising, testing, repacking and relabelling on the said feeder cables in their factory. On the basis of statements of two transporters, it is alleged that the said cables have not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Excise authorities showing the clearances on payment of duty. Consequent to the audit of their records between February 2007 to May 2007, it was opined that the cables imported by the appellant on which they availed credit was not an input as no activity of manufacturing carried out on the said imported items. Later, statements of the General Manager was taken and also of two transporters viz. M/s. Vishnu Roadways & Logistics Services and M/s. Dhawan Roadways Services. The allegation of the Department was that the inputs were not received inside the factory and secondly, assuming that the inputs in question were brought into the factory, but the processes undertaken on the said inputs did not result into manufacture. The Department was not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , claimed depreciation on plant & machinery. All these evidences though produced before the authorities below, the same were not considered and discarded. He has submitted that once the Department has accepted the duty on the final products considering the fact that the inputs processed resulted into dutiable product later, the Department cannot be allowed to deny cenvat credit on the inputs alleging the processes carried out not amount to manufacture. In support, he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal and High Courts, particularly the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes & Strips Pvt. Ltd. [2017(349) ELT 686 (Kar.)], which followed the ratio of Bombay High Court in the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e that processes on the inputs were undertaken in their factory premises after the inputs brought into their factory. Also, the statements of two transporters relied upon by the learned Commissioner do not inspire confidence inasmuch as further investigation was not carried out by the Department and the transporters have not categorically claimed to have not transported the goods during the period they have employed by the appellant. Besides, the statements of two transporters among 13 to 14 transporters cannot be generalised and made applicable to the entire period. In these circumstances, the alternative argument pursued by the Department in denying the credit that the processes do not result into manufacture needs to be examined. 6. We .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ra 7 observed as follows:- 7. It is an undisputed position that the final product is treated as dutiable and duty is paid by the assessee. When once duty is paid by the assessee treating the activity as manufacturing activity by the Department, Cenvat credit is available and there is no question of reversion of Cenvat credit. As such, in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the High Court namely, Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, we do not find any question of law would arise for consideration as sought to be canvassed. 7. In view of the settled principle of law referred to above, we do not see merit in the impugned orders. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates