Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Ceat Ltd on 4 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. E/635/06 [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. AT/527/M-III/2005 dated 29-9-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Mumbai-II ] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, 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?
=======================================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III
:
Appellant
VS
CEAT Ltd
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent(A.R.) for the Appellants
Shri. V.R. Inamdar, Sr. Manager for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical)
Date of hearing: 4/10/2016
Date of decision: /2016
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
The fact of the case is that respondent purchased Tyre Bead wire on payment of duty and availed Cenvat credit. Revenues contention is that as per the Honble Supreme Court decision in case of Collector Of Central Excise Versus Technoweld Industries [2003 (155) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.)] process of drawing wires from wire rods not amounts to manufacture therefore supplier who supplied Tyre bead wire is not manufactured goods consequently duty paid thereon is not available for Cenvat credit to the buyer of such non manufactured goods. Accordingly Cenvat credit was denied. Respondent aggrieved by the Order-in-Original filed appeal before the Commissioner(appeals), who allowed the appeal of the Respondent therefore the Revenue is before us.
2. Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating grounds of appeal submits that Cenvat credit is available only in respect of duty paid on the manufactured goods. In the present case, as per Honble Supreme Court judgments in case of Technoweld Industries(supra) drawing of wire is not manufacturing activity therefore goods received by the respondent is not manufactured goods, hence duty paid thereon is not duty therefore Cenvat credit is not admissible.
3. Shri. V.R. Inamdar, Ld. Sr. Manager for the Respondent submits that the issue is no more res-integra as there is retrospective amendment. In respect of Cenvat credit in respect of wire drawn from the wire rods, government has made retrospective amendment in Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He further submits that the issue has been decided in various judgments. He placed reliance on following judgments:
(a) Bedmutha Wire Co Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Nashik[2016(335) ELT 494(Tri. Mumbai)]
(b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Super Wire Drawing[2013(294) ELT 102(Tri. Del)]
(c) Venus Wire Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. Raigad[2008(224) ELT 495(Tri. Mum)]
(d) Commr. Of C. Ex. & Cus Raipur Vs Raika Engineering & Re-Rolling Mill [2008(224) ELT 109(Tri. Del)]
(e) Sanghani Steels P. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot[2007(207) ELT 428(Tri. Mum)]
(f) Commissioner of C. Ex. Mumbai-III Vs. GKW Ltd [2014(308)ELT 759(Tri. Mumbai)] He submits that in the respondents own case following the retrospective amendment and the CBEC Circular dated 26-7-2006 in the subsequent proceedings on the same issue, the proceedings of the show cause notice has been dropped by Adddl. Commissioner vide order No. 02-03/SSZ/2006-07 dated 30-3-2007.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record.
5. We find that dispute involved in the present case has been settled as per the retrospective amendment made in Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, as per Section 39 of the Finance Act, 2006 which is reproduced below:
39.(1) In the Central Excise Rules, 2002, made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, rule 16 thereof as published in the Official Gazette vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. G.S.R. 143(E), dated the 1st March, 2002 shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively in the manner as specified in column(2) of the Schedule for the period specified in column(3) of that Schedule against the rule specified in column(1) of that schedule.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken or done, at any time during the period commencing on and from the 29th day of May, 2003 and ending with the 8th day of July, 2004 under the rule as amended by sub-section(I), shall be deemed to be and always to have been, for all the purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if the amendment made by sub-section (I) had been in force at all material times.
(3) for the purposes of sub-section (I), the Central Government shall have and shall be deemed to have the power to make rules with retrospective effect as if the Central Government had the power to make rules under Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, retrospectively, at all material times.
It is further observed, the issue has been settled that Cenvat credit cannot be denied on wire rods on which excise duty has been paid following the retrospective amendment and various judgment relied upon by the respondent. We are of the view that impugned order is absolutely legal and correct which does not require any interference. Impugned order is upheld and Revenues appeal is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in court on 31/10/16) C.J. Mathew Member (Technical) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 5 E/635/06