Besoto Starting Systems Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iv, Faridabad

(Arising out of OIA No.274-CE-APPEAL-DLH-IV-14 dt.22.09.14 passed by CCE(A), Delhi-IV, Faridabad)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 15.10.2015

For approval & Signature:

Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Besoto Starting Systems Pvt.Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Delhi-IV, Faridabad Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri D.K.Tiyagi, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K.Mishra, AR

Coram: Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.53212/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

The appeal is filed challenging the disallowance of Cenvat Credit on bright bars used as inputs.

2. The appellants who are engaged in manufacture of goods were also availing credit in respect of duty paid on inputs. It was observed that the appellants had wrongly availed credit on bright bars as Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Vee Kayan Industries,1983 (83) ELT 262 (SC) held that no process of manufacture was involved during transformation of bright bars from wire rods/rounds as the bright bars were not excisable commodity. The show cause notice issued finalized by disallowing the credit and also imposing penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal.

3. The credit on bright bars used by the appellant for manufacture of finished goods, is sought to be denied on the ground that the bright bars are not commodity subject to excise duty as no process of manufacture was involved during transformation of bright bars from wire rods/rounds. The short question involved is whether the appellants are entitled to credit on the duty paid on bright bars used as inputs. According to the department, the manufacturer who supplied the bright bars was not liable to pay duty on these items as no process of manufacture was involved in the transformation of bright bars from round bars and therefore the appellants cannot avail credit on these items. It needs to be stated that the payment of duty on bright bars is not disputed. So also there is no dispute that bright bars were used by the appellants to manufacture their final product. Again there is no case that the inputs supplied were not covered by valid document prescribed under the Cenvat credit Rules, for availing credit. The benefit of credit is sought to be denied on the ground that at the end of the supplier these goods were not excisable goods.

4. In Light Lift Industries vs. CCE, Delhi-IV-2010 (262) ELT 602 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been held that when inputs is received by the appellant and used in or in relation to manufacture of final product and payment of duty is evidenced by the invoices, credit cannot be denied. The question whether the input is the result of a process of manufacture is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether duty has been paid or not on such input.

5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs if any.

(pronounced in the open court)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

mk

3