Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs M/S. Pan Synthetic Pvt Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. 04/2010 dated 24/01/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an assessee has availed CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of a final product on which central excise duty has been paid, the credit cannot be reversed merely because the activity undertaken by the assessee is held not to amount to manufacture, following the majority view in Asian Color Coated Ispat Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-III.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 04/2010 dated 24/01/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate, Bangalore.]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities? Yes
Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax BANGALORE-III PB.NO.5400, QUEENS ROAD, CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001. KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s. PAN SYNTHETIC PVT LTD NO.145/84/6-7, PETE CHENNAPPA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant
Mr. B. N. Gururaj, Advocate For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 16/07/2015
Date of Decision: 16/07/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21657 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA,
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (A), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Mr. R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue and Mr. B. N. Gururaj, Advocate for the respondent, we find that the issue involved is as to whether the assessee, who has availed the CENVAT credit and utilized the same for payment of Central Excise duty on their final product can be called upon to reverse the said CENVAT credit on the ground that the activity undertaken by him did not amount to manufacture.
3. Though there are number of decisions in favour of the respondent but one such reference can be made to latest decision in the case of M/s. Asian Color Coated Ispat Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-III: 2014-TIOL-2111-CESTAT-DEL. Originally, there was a difference of opinion between two Members of the Bench and the matter was referred to third Member. As per the majority decision, even if the activity undertaken by an assessee did not amount to manufacture, the CENVAT credit of duty availed by him in respect of inputs utilized in the manufacture of final product, which stands cleared on payment of duty cannot be asked to be reversed. As such, by following the said decision, we find no infirmity in the views taken by the Commissioner (A). Accordingly, Revenues appeal is rejected.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 16.7.2015.)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA MEMBER TECHNICAL ARCHANA WADHWA MEMBER JUDICIAL
rv
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free