M/S. Pricol Ltd. Plant Iii vs Cce, Salem
- Case No.Appeal No. E/357/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a job worker manufactures goods from inputs supplied by the principal manufacturer and returns the output to the principal, with both supply and receipt effected through a pipeline without deviation, the adjudicating or appellate authority must consider whether the job worker's activity brings the transaction within the job-work arrangement; a failure to examine that question, leaving the CENVAT credit dispute unresolved, is an omission that cannot stand. Where duty-paid goods are manufactured and invoiced to clients for re-use on their behalf, and the duty so collected has been paid to the Treasury, the denial of CENVAT credit on the duty paid cannot be sustained merely because such goods were not cleared for home consumption. An appellate order which fails to deal with the specific pleadings raised by the appellant, and which records a finding on the entitlement to credit without engaging with those pleadings, is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained on that finding.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2012 dated 26.3.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)
M/s. PRICOL Ltd. Plant III Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Salem Respondent
Appearance
Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 07.09.2015
Final Order No. 41110 / 2015
The short dispute as has been argued by learned counsel is that the appellant was principal manufacturer and it has engaged job worker. That job worker used liquid ammonia supplied by the appellant. The output thereof that came back to the appellant was nitrogen. Both the supply and receipt of the input and finished goods was through pipeline. There is no deviation to that. Once there is no deviation, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered whether the concern which used liquid ammonia of the appellant for manufacture of nitrogen for onward transmission to the appellant was job worker. He has not done that. Had there been consideration the dispute on the allowability of CENVAT credit would have been reduced. There is no contradictory finding in the appellate order. Therefore on that aspect appellant succeeds.
2. The second issue raised by the appellant is that certain tools manufactured by the appellant in its factory were meant for re-use thereof on behalf of their client. Therefore, only an invoice was raised and excise duty was collected from their clients and the duty so collected was paid to Treasury. Such duty paid tools were used for clients. Therefore, there cannot be denial of the CENVAT credit of the duty paid which has legitimately gone to Treasury.
3. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) does not deal with the specific pleadings made by the appellant in the order recorded by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, no dealing with the pleading resulting in violation of principles of natural justice calls for redressal. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 19 has recorded no clearance of the tools shall disentitle the appellant to the CENVAT credit. This part of the order is absolutely erroneous for which the appellant should get the benefit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member
Rex
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