CA Urvashi Porwal
Brief of the Case
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. CESTAT, it was held by Madras High Court that the assessee is entitled to Cenvat credit on the capital goods/inputs used in the manufacture of goods which are exempted and which are cleared without payment of duty on Job work basis.
Facts of the case
During the periods in dispute, the assessee had manufactured machine forgings on job work basis and supplied the same to the principal manufacturers without payment of duty. The assessee were also manufacturing similar goods on their and the same were cleared on payment of duty to independent buyers. In such duty payments, the assessee utilized Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs which were used in the manufacture of the job-worked goods, which was objected to by the Department. Hence show cause notice was issued alleging that as the inputs have been used in the manufacture of final products which were cleared without payment of duty, any cenvat credit of the duty paid on such inputs would not be available. The Adjudicating Authority sustained the allegations and ordered recovery of the cenvat credits in question. On appeal, at the instance of the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority, against which appeal has been filed before the Tribunal by the assessee. The Tribunal, by following the decision rendered in CCE Chennai V. Ucal Machine Tools Ltd., reported in 2006-TIOL-76-Cestat-Mad allowed the appeal holding that the said decision of the Tribunal was accepted by the Department. In so holding the Tribunal also held that the machine forgings (job-worked goods) cleared by the assessee to the principal manufacturer during the periods of dispute, without payment of duty, were not to be treated as goods exempted from duty of excise or chargeable to ‘nil’ rate of duty so as to attract the bar created under Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the present appeals have been filed by the Revenue.
Held by Hon’ble High Court of Madras
Both sides fairly conceded before this Court that the issue involved in these appeals are decided by this Court in C.M.A.No.1490 of 2008 dated 06.12.2013 reported in 2014 (9) TMI 444 (Commissioner Versus Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.), wherein by following the unreported decision, similar question raised by the Revenue was answered against the Revenue.
In the decision reported in 2014 (9) TMI 444 (Commissioner Versus Hwashin Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.), while dealing with the similar question of law, this Court held as follows:
“The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent produced before this Court an unreported decision in C.M.A.No.1568 of 2006 dated 18.07.2013, wherein a similar question raised by the Revenue was answered against the Revenue following the decisions of the Bombay High Court reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. A89-Commissioner v. Sterlite Industries (I) Limited as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2012 (26) STR 488-Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Jainsons Wool Coombers Ltd., which were based on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 145-Escorts Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. Following the said decision, the questions raised in this appeal stand answered against the Revenue.”
Following the above-said decision of this Court, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed.