| News | |||
|
Home |
|||
|
|
|||
Repair or Reconditioning of Return Goods - Where the process is not amounting to manufacture - cenvat credit is required to be reversed on inputs used in repairing or reconditioning of goods |
|||
| 1-5-2009 | |||
Present Case: The issue involved: The appellants are manufacturers of Electric Motor. In the present cases the issue involves the return of the motors cleared. In one case the motor was cleared on payment of duty. Somehow, it was not accepted by the buyer. Therefore, the goods had to be returned under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants took credit on the returned goods. But the returned goods were later dismantled and certain modifications were carried out and the stator and the rotor of the returned goods after the modifications were cleared on payment of duty. It so happened, that when the stator and rotor were cleared, the duty incidence was little less than the duty on the original motor and on which they took credit when it was returned. Therefore, the Revenue proceeded against for the differential duty. In the second appeal, the goods were originally exported but however due to certain defects they were re-imported. When they were re-imported the countervailing duty was paid. The appellants took credit of the countervailing duty, when the goods were received under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules. In this case also the original goods were dismantled and with certain modifications the stator and rotor were cleared and while clearing them duty was paid. Here also there was a differential duty involved. Decision: When the motor is originally manufactured there is already a stator and rotor. Once it is received back, then it is dismantled and certain modifications are made in the stator winding, rotor winding and later it is cleared again. These modifications themselves by no stretch of imagination can be called manufacture. Manufacture means a new product come into existence. The stator and rotor are already there. So making certain modifications in them in our view would not amount to manufacture. Once it is considered that the process does not amount to manufacture, then the appellants should pay an amount equal to the credit taken by them it cannot be less. Therefore, the demand of differential duty in one appeal is correct. In the second appeal the refund claim is rejected. In our view it is correct and legal. However, since the issue is one of interpretation, the penalties are not warranted.
|
|||
