9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1687 - AT - Central ExciseDemand along with interest and penalty - Availment and utilization of the CENVAT Credit of duty - goods were neither inputs nor capital goods or in relation to the manufacture of final products - contravention of the provisions of Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT -Considering the fact that the issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the appellant s own case 2020 (1) TMI 477 - CESTAT KOLKATA we are of the view that the above ratio is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore by following the ratio laid down in the above decision we hold that the demands confirmed against the appellant in the impugned orders are not sustainable. Consequently we set aside the demands confirmed against the appellant. Accordingly no penalty is imposable on the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals filed by the appellant with consequential relief if any as per law.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were: - Whether the appellant was entitled to avail and utilize CENVAT Credit on materials such as M.S. Round, M.S. Flat, M.S. Plate, M.S. Joists, M.S. Angle, M.S. Channel, and TMT Bars, which were used to manufacture packing materials for export goods. - Whether these materials qualify as inputs or capital goods under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and whether they were utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. - Whether the appellant's utilization of CENVAT Credit on such materials contravened the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, thereby justifying disallowance, recovery of credit, interest, and imposition of penalties. - The applicability of a prior decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case on identical facts and circumstances, and whether that precedent should govern the present appeals. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue: Entitlement to CENVAT Credit on materials used for manufacturing packing materials for export goods Relevant legal framework and precedents: The matter revolves around the interpretation of Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which defines inputs and capital goods eligible for credit. The appellant's contention was that the iron and steel products were used to manufacture packing materials necessary for protecting cast articles during transit for export, thus qualifying as inputs utilized in relation to manufacture of final products. The Tribunal relied heavily on its earlier decision in the appellant's own case (Final Order No. 76963 of 2019 dated 17.12.2019 in Excise Appeal No. 184 of 2012), which dealt with identical facts and circumstances. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant had produced evidence of receipt of duty-paid inputs and had maintained proper registers (RG-23A Part-I/RG-23C Part-I) indicating utilization of the said materials. The Commissioner did not dispute the duty-paid character of the inputs or their receipt in the factory. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had exported approximately 40,000 MT of cast articles, while only about 2,000 MT of materials were used to manufacture packing materials, representing a small percentage (approximately 2%) relative to exports, with an acknowledged loss of about 20% in the packing material manufacturing process. The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's charge that the inputs were not used in the manufacture of packing materials. The appellant's explanation and documentary evidence were accepted as satisfactory proof of utilization in relation to manufacture of final products, namely the export goods. Key evidence and findings: The appellant's maintenance of registers demonstrating duty payment and utilization, the spot memo admitting usage of materials for packing manufacture, and the scale of exports relative to input consumption were critical evidentiary points. The absence of any dispute regarding duty payment or removal of inputs without duty further supported the appellant's position. Application of law to facts: Applying the definition of inputs under Rule 2(k), the Tribunal concluded that the materials used to manufacture packing materials for export goods qualify as inputs used in relation to manufacture of final products. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on these materials. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument was that these materials were neither inputs nor capital goods and thus credit was not permissible. However, the Tribunal rejected this contention due to the appellant's credible evidence and the prior binding precedent. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue did not dispute the duty-paid status or the receipt of inputs, weakening their case. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the demands for disallowance of CENVAT Credit, recovery of amounts, interest, and penalties were unsustainable. The appellant's utilization of the materials for manufacturing packing materials necessary for export was within the ambit of the CENVAT Credit Rules. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpt from its earlier decision, which was adopted in the present case: "The contention of the appellant is that they are exporting cast article of iron and steel and for that they require packing material which they are making from MS Rounds, MS Tor, MS angles, MS channels, MS flat, MS joist, plywood lead scrap and aluminium scrap. A spot memo was issued against them that they are using these for making packing material. The applicant could not produce documents/evidence that they have utilized the aforesaid material in manufacturing packing material. The contention of the appellant is that they have replied and explained the way and manner in which the material has been utilized in manufacture of the packing material. The contention is that it has never been the case of the department that the input received by them was not duty paid and were not received in the factory. It is also not the case of the department that they have removed the inputs from their factory without payment of duty. The contention is that during the material period, they have exported the quantity of 40,000 MT (approx.) and the input utilized for the packing material was only 2,000 MT approx. which is only 2%. The contention is that there is 20% losses in making the packing material. We find that learned Commissioner in his finding has not disputed receipt of cenvatable material and their duty paying character. RG-23A Part-I/RG-23C Part-I Register maintained during the material period indicate that the duty paid on material was used entirely. Learned Commissioner has also recorded in his finding that against the spot memo issued to them in course of audit, the said assessee mentioned that the MS Rounds, MS Tor, MS angles, MS channels, MS flat, MS joist, plywood lead scrap and aluminium scrap has been utilized for manufacturing of packing material. Prima facie, we find that the contention is that during the material period, they have exported the quantity of 40,000 MT (Approx.) and the input utilized for the packing material was only 2,000 MT approx. which is only 2%, which is also not disputed by the Commissioner. In such a situation we do not find any substance in the charge that the inputs have not been used in the manufacture of packing materials, which were used as the packing material for export goods. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside, which we do so. Appeal is accordingly allowed." The core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue were:
|
