Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review  ||  Supreme Court: Internet Access and Use is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children  ||  Supreme Court: Letters Patent Bench Cannot Interfere Merely Over Errors of Fact or Law  ||  Supreme Court: Voters May File Complaints Against Candidates over False Affidavits under RP Act  ||  Madras HC: Using Children in Campaign is Inappropriate but Does Not Invalidate Election  ||  Allahabad HC: Section 69 BNS Cannot Be Invoked by Transgender Woman in False Marriage Promise Case  ||  Delhi High Court Permits Britannia’s ‘No Added Sugar, Maida or Palm Oil’ Claim on Biscuit Packs  ||  Calcutta High Court Bars Deportation of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman until CAA Application is Decided    

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