2025 (7) TMI 556 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of ineligible CENVAT Credit - no manufacturing activity taken place on procured goods - HELD THAT - The goods in question Silico Manganese is the finished goods for the Burdwan unit which was despatched to the appellant unit on payment of Excise Duty under proper Central Excise Invoices. The appellants are manufacturers of sponge iron and silica manganese. As per the appellants silica manganese is also an input for the manufacture of their finished goods sponge iron. In the month of September 2009 they have shown clearance of 810.00 66.00 MTs on payment of Excise Duty. They have also accounted for captively consumed and exported Ferro Silico Manganese giving the details of the same. Similarly in March 2010 they have cleared 81.00 MT and 135.500 MT on payment of Excise Duty also captively consuming 15 MT and exporting 760.00 MT. This clarifies beyond doubt that the goods in question whether cleared after manufacture as is being claimed by the appellant or without manufacturing process as is being claimed by the Revenue in both the cases Excise Duty stands paid. The Dept. even while taking the stand that no manufacturing activity has taken place has no qualm in accepting the Excise Duty paid on the manufactured finished goods Ferro Silicon Manganese as can be seen from the ER-1 Returns - In case of finished goods the Excise Duty is required to be paid in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944. If the inputs are cleared as such the cenvat credit taken thereon is required to be reversed in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. In the present case there is no allegation that the Excise Duty paid by the appellant treating the same as finished goods falls short of the Cenvat Credit claimed by them. The appellant has clearly stated the procedure to be adopted by them. No queries have been made to ascertain if the activity would amount to manufacture or not. After this the CERA audit has taken up this issue vide Spot Memo on 19.01.2012 for which the appellant has filed their response immediately on 20.01.2012 taking the stand that reprocessing work taken up by them would amount to manufacture. After this there was a silence for the next more than 2 years till the Show Cause Notice was issued on 28.07.2014. It is also observed that during the entire intervening period the Revenue has been accepting the Excise Duty paid and the ER-1 Returns for this product as finished goods. Therefore while the appellant has been quite transparent in disclosing all their facts the Revenue has been lethargic in issuing the SCN after nearly 5 years from the date of their intimation letter and after more 2 years from the date CERA audit raising this issue. Therefore the Revenue has failed to establish any suppression on the part of the appellant. Hence we set aside the impugned order even on account of time-bar also. The impugned order is set aside on account of merits as well as on account of limitation - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on Silico Manganese procured from its sister unit, given that no further manufacturing activity was undertaken on such goods at the receiving unit.

2. Whether the process of reprocessing Silico Manganese through sizing, chemical treatment, and packing amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise law.

3. Whether the payment of Excise Duty on Silico Manganese cleared from the factory, irrespective of the manufacturing activity, justifies the retention of CENVAT Credit without reversal under Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

4. Whether the extended period for issuing the Show Cause Notice was rightly invoked by the Revenue.

5. Whether the demand raised by the Revenue was justified in light of the facts and settled legal principles, including the aspect of revenue neutrality.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Entitlement to CENVAT Credit on Silico Manganese procured from sister unit without further manufacturing activity

The relevant legal framework includes Rule 2(k) and Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which define inputs and conditions for availing CENVAT Credit by manufacturers or producers of final products. The Adjudicating authority held that CENVAT Credit is available only if the process amounts to manufacture, i.e., a new and identifiable product emerges with a distinct name, character, or use. Since no manufacturing activity was found on the procured Silico Manganese, the credit was disallowed.

The appellant contended that Silico Manganese is an input for the manufacture of the final product M.S. Billets, and since the goods were cleared on payment of Excise Duty, the credit was rightly availed. The appellant also highlighted that the Silico Manganese was duly accounted for in the Input Stock Register and removed on payment of duty under proper invoices.

The Court examined the ER-1 Returns submitted by the appellant, which showed clearance of Silico Manganese on payment of Excise Duty, including captively consumed quantities. It was noted that the Revenue accepted the Excise Duty paid on these goods, which were declared as finished goods in the Returns.

The Court rejected the Adjudicating authority's ultra-technical approach that a manufacturing process must necessarily occur to avail credit, emphasizing that the key consideration is whether Excise Duty has been paid on clearance. The Court held that since the goods were cleared on payment of duty and accounted for as finished goods, the appellant was entitled to take CENVAT Credit.

Issue 2: Whether reprocessing of Silico Manganese amounts to manufacture

The appellant argued that even if the reprocessing activities such as sizing, chemical treatment, and packing do not amount to manufacture, the Excise Duty paid on such activities has been accepted by the Department, and hence CENVAT Credit should be allowed.

The Revenue maintained that these activities do not amount to manufacture and thus the credit was ineligible.

The Court referred to precedents including Ajinkya Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd. v. Commissioner Of CGST & Excise, which established that once Excise Duty on final products has been accepted by the Department, CENVAT Credit need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. The Court observed that the Department had accepted the duty payment and ER-1 Returns without objection.

Accordingly, the Court held that the reprocessing activities, even if not amounting to manufacture, do not disentitle the appellant from availing CENVAT Credit when duty has been paid on clearance.

Issue 3: Effect of payment of Excise Duty on clearance and applicability of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules

Rule 3(5) mandates reversal of CENVAT Credit if inputs are cleared as such without being used in manufacture. The appellant submitted that Silico Manganese was cleared on payment of duty, covering the credit taken, and no allegation of short payment was made.

The Court noted that the Revenue did not dispute the payment of Excise Duty on the cleared goods and that the amount of credit claimed was covered by the duty paid. The Court held that the payment of duty on clearance and acceptance of ER-1 Returns by the Department effectively satisfies the requirement of Rule 3(5), and no reversal of credit was warranted.

Issue 4: Legitimacy of invoking extended period for issuance of Show Cause Notice

The appellant had suo-moto intimated the business process and transfer of Silico Manganese between units well in advance through a letter dated 08-09-2009. The Department initiated the CERA audit in January 2012 and issued the Show Cause Notice in July 2014, nearly five years after the initial intimation and over two years after the audit.

The Court found that the Revenue failed to establish any suppression or concealment by the appellant. The appellant had been transparent about the process, and the Revenue had accepted Excise Duty payments and ER-1 Returns without objection during the intervening period.

Consequently, the Court held that the extended period provisions were not applicable in this case, and the demand was time-barred.

Issue 5: Justification of the demand and revenue neutrality

The appellant contended that the issue was revenue neutral as the duty paid by one unit should be available as CENVAT Credit to the other unit, with no loss to the government exchequer.

The Court recognized this principle and relied on multiple judgments, including Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneswar-II, CCE, Pune v. Coca Cola India Ltd., and CCE & C, Vadodara-II v. Indeos Abs Ltd., which held that no demand should be fastened when the issue is revenue neutral.

Given that Excise Duty was paid on the Silico Manganese cleared from the factory and accounted for as finished goods, the Court concluded that there was no loss of revenue, and the demand was unjustified.

Significant Holdings

"The Adjudicating authority's ultra technical finding that the inputs have to be necessarily be used in the 'manufacturing process' and a finished goods has to emerge and then only the CENVAT Credit can be taken to be erroneous."

"There are several instances, where the CET remains same for both the raw material and the finished goods, but the usage is for different purposes. The fact to be checked is whether ultimately any Excise Duty is being paid or not."

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

"The Revenue has failed to establish any suppression on the part of the appellant. Hence, we set aside the impugned order even on account of time-bar also."

"The appellant has correctly taken the cenvat credit."

The Court set aside the impugned order both on merits and limitation grounds, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief as per law.