M/S. R.S. Hygiene Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. Jaipur

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 335(RKS) CE/JPR-I/2007 dated 26.11.2007 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. R.S. Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. Jaipur .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri H. Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellants

Ms. Ranjana Jha, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 05.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50021/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Cenvat Credit on inputs have been denied by the Revenue on the premise that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit.

2. Heard the parties.

3. After going through the facts of the case and arguments advanced by both the sides I find that in this case during the period April 2001 to June 2001 the appellant availed Cenvat Credit of Rs.7,59,336/- whereas they have paid duty on the clearance amounting to Rs.9,65,213/-. The contention of the Revenue is that as the activity does not amount to manufacture, therefore appellants are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit. In the case of Ajinkiya Enterprises Vs. C.C.E. Pune reported in 2013 (288) E.L.T. 247 (Tri-Mumbai) this Tribunal has held that when the activity does not amount to manufacture, if the final goods have been cleared on payment of duty in those above circumstances the duty paid on final product shall amount to reversal of Cenvat Credit on the inputs. The Said order was affirmed by the Honble High Court in the case of C.C.E. Pune Vs. Ajinkiya Enterprises reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 (Tri-Mumbai). In these circumstances, the issue is no longer res entigra. Therefore, I hold that whatever duty paid on the clearance of final goods by the appellant is sufficient and appellants are not required to reverse the Cenvat Credit availed by them.

4. The another issue of entitlement of Cenvat Credit on inputs in stock and inputs contained in work in progress and finished goods have been settled by the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. H.M.T. (TD) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E Panchkula reported in 2008 (232) ELT 217 (Tri.) and the decision relied by the Ld. Commissioner in the case of Tractor & Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. Madurai  2014-TOIL-2307-HC-MAD-CX have been set aside by the Honble High Court of Madras.

5. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/3217/2007-EX(SM)