TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the duty paid and modvat credit availed were identical and therefore consequences of payment of excise duty after availing the credit was revenue neutral. - payment of duty on value addition on the inputs received by the appellant amounts to reversal of the CENVAT credit as demanded by the department in the show-cause notices. - however penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed. - E/1424/2007 & E/457/2008 - A/501-504/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 5-7-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri S.S. Gupta, Chartered Accountant for the appellant. Shri P.K. Agarwal, Authorised Representative (JCDR) for the respondent. Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant have filed these appeals against the impugned orders confirming the demand on account of wrong availment of CENVAT credit which they were not entitled to take. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: 2.1 M/s. Raymond Ltd (Division - J.K. Files Tools) (hereinafter referred to 'as the appellant') situated at Jekegram, Pokhran Road No. 1, Thane - 400 606, holder of Central Excise Registration No. AAACR4896AXM005, were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rustnil Spl 2710.90 150 kgs Corobite 3811.90 39 kgs Aluminum Oxide Grain 2818.19 727 kgs 2.4 The total CENVAT credit in respect of 'inputs' was shown as ₹ 1920.37 + ₹ 561.69 = ₹ 2482.06 and the total CENVAT Credit balance in respect of 'capital goods' was shown as ₹ 30108.80 + ₹ 634.53 = ₹ 3742.33. 2.5 However, it was noticed that the appellants were continuing to receive inputs and availing CENVAT credit of the duty paid on such inputs and, therefore, for the period January, 2005 to Feb 2007 it was noticed that at the material time there were no finished / semi finished goods lying in stock. 2.6 Further, on enquiry it was revealed that the appellants had brought duty paid excisable goods viz. Alloy Rod File Steel (Hot Rolled) etc. and taken the credit of the duty paid on such inputs and they only carried out the process of 'softening' on the hot rolled steel and sent it to the job-worker's end for converting it into Rods and Bars under Rule 4(5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery of CENVAT credit availed on inputs for the period January 2005 to February 2007 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for imposing penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and for recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Act. The show-cause notices were adjudicated, duty demands were confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. 3. The adjudication order for the period up to July 2005 was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also upheld the adjudication order. Therefore, aggrieved by both the orders, the appellant have filed these two appeals on the identical issue on the same ground before this Tribunal. Revenue has also filed cross-objections in these two appeals of the appellant. 4. Shri S.S. Gupta, learned Chartered Accountant appeared before us and submitted that although the activity undertaken by the appellants during the impugned period does not amount to manufacture but the appellant have cleared the goods on payment of duty. Therefore, the said payment of duty may be treated as reversal of CENVAT credit. He also submitted that the alloy rod file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amal (India) Ltd. 2009 TIOL649 HC; Ahmednagar Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2009 (15) STR 729 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Amrit Paper vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana 2008 (12) STR 536 (SC). He also rely on the decision in the case of Jessop Company Ltd. vs. Union of India 2010 (250) ELT 490 (Cal.). He further submitted that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of P.V. Sanghvi vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II 2004 (172) ELT 24 (Tri.-Mumbai). Therefore, he finally submitted that the appellant were not entitled to take CENVAT credit which they have taken and, therefore, required to reverse the said inadmissible credit along with interest and penalty equal to the duty has to be imposed on them which has been confirmed by the lower authorities. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned orders be upheld. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7. On careful consideration of the arguments advanced by rival sides, we find that in this case, the basic issue is that when the appellants themselves have informed the department that after 31/12/2004 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
