Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Treadsdirect Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 December, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE COURT - I Appeal No: E/1882 & 1883/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.33-34/2010 CE dated 8.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Cochin.) Date of Hearing: 23.12.2011 Date of decision: 23.12.2011 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Treadsdirect Ltd. (Formerly, Elgitread (India) Ltd.) Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Calicut Commissionerate Respondent
Appearance For the appellants : Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. Sabrina Cano, DR CORAM SHRI P. G. CHACKO, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2011 In these appeals filed by the assessee, their grievance is that CENVAT credit of the duty paid on their input was denied to them on the ground that no such duty ought to have been paid by the job worker who supplied the goods to the appellant.
2. After hearing both sides, I note that it is not in dispute that the job worker paid duty on the job worked goods supplied to the appellant and that such goods were further processed by the appellant to manufacture their final product. Again it is not in dispute that, the inputs supplied by the job worker were covered by a valid document prescribed for availment of CENVAT credit. The benefit cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that the job worker should not have paid duty on the goods. The respondent has no case that the duty paid by the job worker was refunded to them. The lower appellate authority does not appear to have applied his mind to the Tribunals decision in Kwality Biscuits Limited vs. Commisisoner - 2006 (205) ELT 669 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it was held that MODVAT credit of duty paid on input packing charges was not liable to be denied to the assessee on the ground that such charges were not includable in the assessable value of the goods. In the cited case, it was found that the input supplier chose to pay duty on the packing charges also and that input was used by the assessee in or in relation to manufacture of their final product. The appellant has placed on record a few other decisions also viz. Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner - 2006 (206) ELT 533 (Tri.-Bang.), Commissioner vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC), Commissioner vs. Hylite Cables - 2007 (212) ELT 284 (Tri.-Ahmed.), etc. The ratio of these decisions is that any duty actually paid (whether or not payable) on input which has been received in the factory of the manufacturer of final product and used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product must be allowed as MODVAT/CENVAT credit to be utilized for payment of duty on the final product. It also emerges from the cited decisions that questions like whether the input is dutiable, whether any element of cost is includable in the assessable value of the input etc. cannot be agitated at the end of manufacturer of the final product. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and these appeals are allowed.
(Pronounced and dictated in Open Court) (P. G. CHACKO) Member (Judicial) rv ??
??
??
??
3