Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Punch Ratna Steel (P) Ltd vs Cce & St, Rohtak on 30 September, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-DB
Date of Hearing: 30.09.2014
E/Stay/50577,50581,50582/2014
E/50449,50454,50455/2014
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 50/CE/Comm/DM/RTK/2013-14 dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, (Appeal),Rohtak]
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would 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 of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s. R.B. Steel Services
Shri Mhavir Bright Steel Udhyog
Punch Ratna Steel (P) Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Rohtak Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Amit Jain, Advocate Present for the Respondent :Shri M.S. Negi, DR FINAL ORDER NO. 54157-54159/2014 PER: R.K. Singh Stay application alongwith appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original No. 50/CE/Comm/DM/RTK/2013-14 dated 30.09.2013 in terms of which the adjudicating authority held that converting black rods/bars into bright bars did not amount to manufacture during the relevant period (May 2003-April 2004) and therefore the Cenvat credit taken on capital goods/black rods/bars used for making bright bars was not admissible. As a consequence the adjudicating authority disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 68,24,147/- and ordered recovery of the same alongwith interest and also imposed mandatory penalty of Rs. 68,24,147/-. It is also seen out of total demand of Rs. 68,24,147/-, demand of Rs. 67,72,047/- relates to the credit taken on the inputs and demand of Rs. 52.100/- relates to the credit taken on capital goods.
2. The appellants have contended that their process amounted to manufacture, they had been paying duty on their product namely bright bars and the total duty paid by them is more than the amount of credit taken. In this scenario, they contended that the question of wilfull mis-statement/suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty simply would not arise. They also cited a large number of judgments to the effect that if the duty has been paid on the final product which is more than the amount of credit taken then the question of reversal of the Cenvat credit taken on the ground that the process did not amount to manufacture would not arise.
3. We have considered the submissions and as the issue is covered by various judicial pronouncements, with the consent of the ld. AR, proceed to decide the appeal itself waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.
4. That the process of conversion of black bars/rods into bright bars does not amount to manufacture was declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vee Kayan Industries Vs. Collector of CE, Chandigarh 1996 (83) ELT 262 (SC). It was also followed by CESTAT in the case of Geeta Bright Bar Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-V 2012 (277) ELT 67 (Tri.-Mumbai). Thus it is pointless to indulge in any discussion regarding the contention of the appellants that their process amounted to manufacture as the issue is no longer res-integra for the relevant period. It is seen that in the case of Super Forgings and Steels Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai 2007 (217) ELT 559 (Tri.-Chennai), CESTAT held that there is no question of recovery of Cenvat credit which has been utilized towards payment of duty of the final products even when the process did not amount to manufacture. In the case of CCE, Indore vs. M.P. Telelinks Ltd. 2004 (178) ELT 167 (Tri.-Del) CESTAT held that if the department levies and collects the Central Excise duty on the goods remove from the factory, they can not claim for the purpose of allowing Cenvat credit that the process of manufacture had not taken place. Similar view was held by CESTAT in the case of CCE, J&K Jammu Vs. North Sun Enterprises Industrial Estate 2012 (284) ELT 75 (Tri.-Del.). Recently CESTAT in the case of Plyrub Extrusions (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Belapur 2014-TIOL-1867-CESTAT-MUM has held as under:
3. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the appellants has processed the inputs and the same has been cleared on payment of duty therefore, if their activity is to be held as amounts to manufacture, the duty paid for clearance may be treated as reversal of Cenvat credit in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ajinkya enterprises -2013 (288) ELT 247 (T) = 2011-TIOL-1333-CESTAT-MUM which has been affirmed by the High Court of Bombay in 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.) = 2012-TIOL-578-HC-MUM-CX.
4. AS the issue is no longer res intergra in the light of this Tribunal in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra) which has been affirmed by the Honble Bombay High Court therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
5. In the light of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed (Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. SINGH) TECHNICAL MEMBER Neha 1