Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

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