UNIVERSAL AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Vs. C.C.E., S.T. & CUS.
LAWS(CB)-2015-1-3
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE
Decided on January 23,2015

Universal Air Products Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
C.C.E., S.T. And Cus. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.V.MURTHY - (1.) IN all the appeals, issue involved is same.
(2.) The issue involved is whether the appellant, who is engaged in manufacture of copper coated MS wires, is eligible for Cenvat credit. After manufacturing the copper coated MS wires, duty was paid on such wires and the same was transferred to Unit -II. Unit -II took the credit of duty paid, undertook packing activity and cleared on payment of duty. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in all the cases, the amount of duty paid was more than the amount of credit taken since the packing cost has been added. Therefore, he submits that it has to be held that the entire amount of Cenvat credit taken by them has already been reversed. He also submits that the issue is no longer res integra and there are several decisions taking a view that in such cases assessee is entitled to credit. He relies upon the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Delta Corporation : [2013 (287) E.L.T. 15 (Guj.)]. Learned AR would oppose the same saying that knowing well that credit is not available, the appellants have taken the credit and therefore, the proceedings initiated are appropriate. After hearing both the sides and considering the submissions, I find that the issue itself can be finally decided rather than postponing the issue after a number of years. Accordingly, the requirement of pre -deposit is waived and appeals are taken up for final decision. In addition to the above cited decision, learned counsel had also cited two more decisions. But in none of the cases the situation was not the one where the same appellant had two units. Therefore, I cannot say that the decisions can be applied to the facts of the case. Nevertheless, in view of the decisions cited, the decisions were rendered taking a view that even when there is no manufacture, credit can be taken. The only difference is that in the case of the appellant, the goods were transferred to their own unit, whereas in other cases, input suppliers were there. In my opinion, appellants could have exercised and should have exercised proper assessment process in which case, there would have been no need to pay the duty again by the second unit after taking credit since there is no manufacture in the second unit. Even after the appellants were informed by the authorities, they went on taking the credit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the appellants are liable for imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the demand for Cenvat credit with interest is set aside and mandatory penalty is also set aside. In each case, the appellant is directed to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupee five thousand only). Appeals are disposed of in above terms. (Order pronounced and dictated in open Court);


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.