Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 395 - HC - Central ExcisePrinciples of natural justice - credit denied without following the precedential decision passed by it in the Appellant’s own case - denial of substantial benefit of credit on the basis of appreciation of incorrect facts which were never set up by the Department in the impugned proceedings - denial of credit even after holding that the Job Worker had no facility to manufacture Crown Corks by using Tin Sheets which were in fact received by the Job Worker for printing and sent back to the Appellant after printing - denial of credit without appreciating the fact that denial of substantial benefit to the Appellant amounts to doubt taxation - invocation of longer period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The dispute is relating to the MODVAT credit availed on 88.637 metric tons of Tin Sheets during the period 1991-92 to 1993-94 by the appellant herein. The appellant – M/s. ECPL has claimed the MODVAT credit on these inputs. It is not in dispute that these inputs were directly sent to the Job Worker, M/s MCPL for printing and cutting. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of JAYPEE REWA CEMENT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MP [2001 (8) TMI 1332 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Rule 57A(1) did not requires inputs to be utilized in factory premises, that the credit is permissible in respect of intermediate goods received from Job Worker. The credit can be allowed only if the intermediate products received by the manufacturer of the said final products are accompanied by any of the documents and it is evidenced that the payment of duty on such inputs of capital goods has been paid. It is significant to note that in the assessee’s own case in M/S. EMCEE CROWNS (P) LTD, SHRI MAHESH HEGDE, ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT, SHRI K.S. DILIP, DIRECTOR, SHRI PRASHANTH HEGDE, CHAIRMAN, M/S. METAL CLOSURES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE C.C.E. -BANGALORE-III [2018 (10) TMI 16 - CESTAT BANGALORE], the Tribunal has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee. However, the Tribunal failed to consider the same or to distinguish the said decision of the Tribunal. - in the present case, M/s ECPL no doubt has sent the inputs directly to the Job Worker – M/s MCPL, it is an admitted fact that M/s MCPL has no infrastructure availability for manufacture of Crown Corks and the said Tin Sheets after printing and cutting have reached M/s ECPL. If so, merely for the reason that the said diversion of goods directly to the Job Worker was not informed to the department is not a ground for denial of the CENVAT credit. The cryptic order passed on this aspect making bald observations is not in accordance with law and the same cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, denial of credit to the assessee amounts to double taxation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|