Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 6 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Appeal No. E/88174/13-Mum [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 11/MAK(11)COMMR/RGD/13-14 dated 31/05/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd.
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri Rajesh Ostwal, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Hitesh Shah, Commr. (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing: 06/01/2016
Date of decision: 06/01/2016
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 11/MAK(11)COMMR/RGD/13-14 dated 31/05/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Raigad.
2. The issue involved in the present case is whether the process of cutting/ slitting of cold rolled or hot rolled stainless steel coils/ plates of various length, width and thickness into coils of specific width as also de-coiling of such cold rolled or hot rolled stainless steel coils/ plates and cutting them into sheets of specific dimensions amount to manufacture as defined in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and when the process is not amounts to manufacture, whether the appellant is entitle for cenvat credit on the various inputs used in the above process.
3. We heard both the sides.
4. This very issue in the appellants own case had come up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd. vs. Commr. of C.Ex, Raigad 2014 (310) ELT 194 (Tri.-Mum) held that the activity of the appellant is amount to manufacture and appeal was allowed on the merit as well as on limitation. This judgment of the Tribunal was accepted by the revenue and in another case of the appellant itself the Commissioner relying on the aforesaid Tribunal judgment dropped the proceeding vide OIO No. 11/SHH(11)PC/RGD/2015-16 dated 24-9-15.
5. In view of the above settled position on the issue involved in the impugned order can not sustain. We also find that even if it is held that the activities of the appellant is not amount to manufacture, cenvat credit availed on the inputs and utilized for payment of duty on the processed goods cannot be disputed in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which is reproduced below:
RULE 16. Credit of duty on goods brought to the factory. (1) Where any goods on which duty had been paid at the time of removal thereof are brought to any factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason, the assessee shall state the particulars of such receipt in his records and shall be entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid as if such goods are received as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and utilise this credit according to the said rules.
?(2) If the process to which the goods are subjected before being removed does not amount to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken under sub-rule (1) and in any other case the manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be.
[Explanation. - The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods.] ?(3) If there is any difficulty in following the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the assessee may receive the goods for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason and may remove the goods subsequently subject to such conditions as may be specified by the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be].
From the above Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, it can be seen that even if activities are not amount to manufacture, credit on duty paid goods as inputs is allowed and the same can be utilized for payment of duty on the processed goods. Therefore, in view of the Rule 16, credit can not be denied even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. As per the above position, we are of the considered view that impugned order is not sustainable; hence the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(Operative order pronounced in court) Raju Member (Technical) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) saifi 4 Appeal No. E/88174/13-Mum