Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mahindra Hinoday Industries Ltd vs Cce Pune I on 23 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/92409/14
IN APPEAL NO. E/85197/14 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-130-13-14 dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Mahindra Hinoday Industries Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Pune I
Respondent
Appearance Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate For appellants Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Supdt (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 23.05.2014 Date of Decision : 23.05.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for confirming the duty and interest.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicles and parts thereof. For the purpose of manufacturing of final products, they sent certain inputs viz. casting to their jobworker. During the processing of the inputs, some scrap generated at the jobworkers end. A show-cause notice was issued and CENVAT Credit on input contained in scrap generated at the premises of the jobworker was denied on the premise that the jobworker is availing SSI exemption and not paying duty on the scrap. Proceedings were initiated. Interest was demanded and Equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalty imposed on the appellant on the ground that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order for confirming the duty and interest, the appellant is before me.
3. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after granting stay I take up the appeal for final disposal with the consent of both the sides.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the CBEC Circular No. B-4/7/2000-TRU dated 03.04.2000, it has been clarified that CENVAT Credit shall be admissible on the part of input that is contained in any waste, refuse or bye product. Subsequent to the said Circular, this Tribunal also held in the case of Forbes Aquatech Ltd. v. CCE Calicut 2008 (230) ELT 629 (Tri. Bang.) that any waste and scrap generated at the end of jobwork, input contained in scrap is not required to be reversed. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that as the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal, therefore, the impugned order be set aside.
5. The learned A.R. supported the impugned order.
6. Considered the submissions made by both the sides.
7. I find that the CBEC Circular has clarified that input contained in any waste and scrap generated during the course of manufacturing of final product is admissible. Therefore, it is immaterial if the scrap has been generated at the end of jobworker who is availing SSI exemption on the scrap. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled for CENVAT Credit on inputs which contained in waste and scrap generated at the end of jobworker. With these observations, I do not find any merits in the impugned order therefore, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Stay application is also disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
4