M/S Pyramid Portland Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Appeal No.E/465/2012 [Arising out of OIA No.97/2012/Commr(A)/RAJ, dt.27.02.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot]

M/s Pyramid Portland Pvt.Ltd Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Rajkot Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For Respondent: Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:27.05.2015

Order No. A/10688/2015, dt.27.05.2015

Per: P.K. Das

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cement Clinkers classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 01.04.2007, they opted SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE, dt.01.03.2003 as amended. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the Appellant while opting SSI exemption, they are required to reverse the CENVAT Credit on the stock of semi-finished goods (clinkers) and processed material lying in the factory as on 31.03.2007. There was a demand of duty of Rs.1,23,477.00 alongwith interest and penalty. Learned Advocate submits that no amount of CENVAT Credit was lying in their CENVAT account on 31.03.2007. It is contended that they are not entitled to reverse the credit on stocks of the semi-finished goods and stock of purchase.

2. I find that that Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. M/s C.N.C. Commercial Ltd  2008 (224) ELT 239 (P&H) dismissed the appeal on the identical issue Notification No.08/2001-CE, dt.01.04.2001. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:-

5.?We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-revenue of a considerable length and find that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. There are findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) as upheld by the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee-respondent had correctly availed and utilized the credit of duty paid by them on those inputs when these final products were chargeable to excise duty. It has further been found that there was no one to one relationship of the inputs used and the final products manufactured and cleared from the factory. It has rightly been held that the credit of duty paid on inputs cannot be confined to a particular raw material to which the credit is related and out of which a final product is manufactured. Therefore, it has been rightly held that the assessee-respondent were not required to reverse the Cenvat credit of Rs. 88,731/- The judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Dai Ichi Karkaria case has been correctly applied. There is thus no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.

3. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Tirupati Vs Suvera Processed Foods Pvt.Ltd.  2015 (315) ELT 517 (A.P.). The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of H.M.T. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula  2008 (232) ELT 217 (Tri-LB) held that the input-credit legally taken and utilized on the dutiable final products, need not be reversed on the final product becoming exempt subsequently.

4. In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is set aside. The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

cbb

3