SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment  ||  Delhi HC: Mere Possession of Visa Does Not Confer an Unconditional Right to Enter India  ||  Delhi HC: Every Insensitive or Objectionable Matrimonial Act Does Not Amount to Cruelty  ||  J&K&L HC: Fake Driving Licence Does Not Exonerate Insurer If Driver Has a Valid Licence  ||  P&H HC: Safety Council Report and CCTV Cannot Be Rejected at Charge Stage for Lack of Proof  ||  Delhi High Court Stays Rs. 213 Crore SAIL Payout to British Firm over Unstamped Arbitral Award  ||  Allahabad HC: Bar Council Cannot Suspend Advocate’s Licence Pending Disciplinary Inquiry  ||  SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void    

Vishal Presicsion Steel Tubes & Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (14 Dec 2023)

Once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed, even if, the activity not amount to manufacture

MANU/CB/0120/2023

Excise

In facts of present case, the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) Steel Tubes. They availed cenvat credit on the inputs imported and used in the manufacture of finished goods as well as cleared the inputs 'as such' on payment of appropriate duty.

Alleging that the appellant had availed irregular cenvat credit on the imported goods and cleared as such as the said tools neither inputs nor capital goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products, hence show-cause notices were issued to them demanding duty of Rs.75,32,305 and Rs.18,49,511 respectively, with interest and also proposing penalties under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On adjudication, demands were confirmed with interest by the Commissioner, who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

In the present case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of various high precision tools, and also import certain parts used as inputs. The tools were customised and sold by the appellant on payment of appropriate duty of excise on its transaction value, which was more than the credit availed on the inputs. The Revenue disputed the processes undertaken on the imported items alleging the same do not result into manufacture of a new item different from the inputs; hence the activity undertaken by the appellant is purely in the nature of trading; therefore, cenvat credit availed on the inputs cannot be admissible.

The issue is no more res integra as it has already been settled by various decisions. Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Ajinkya Enterprises observed that, once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture. In view of the settled principle of law, there is no merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   CONFIRMATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved