Case Law Details
Rohm & Hass (I) Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture.
Facts- This appeal of M/s Rohm & Haas (I) P Ltd lies against order1 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur holding the goods cleared by them, domestically and for export, between 2007 and 2011 as not liable to be charged to excise duty and, in consequence, ineligible to avail credit of ₹ 3,28,39,680 on ‘inputs’ procured by them, from domestic sources and from abroad, and to credit of ₹ 21,77,227 on ‘input services’ under rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The appellant is in the business of re-packing and labeling ‘coronate LS’, ‘bayhdur 302’ and ‘atomatic blu RB2’ of which the first two are imported with credit was availed on the additional duty of customs discharged on clearance from customs and on the entire duty included in the purchase price of the last. Proceedings for recovery of such credit was initiated on the ground that the notes in related chapters and sections of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 did not deem such activity to be manufacture and the said process did not also conform to any other facet of manufacture in section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 with no change in product or enhancement of marketability having occurred. It is on record that the appellant had been clearing the re-packed goods on payment of appropriate duties of central excise.
Conclusion- Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE v. Creative Enterprises reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.) has held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
