Credit is admissible even if Inputs are discarded during manufacturing process
PrintListen to this Article
Credit is admissible even if Inputs are discarded during manufacturing process
We are sharing with you an important judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 237 (SC)] on the following issue:
Issue:
Whether Cenvat credit on Inputs can be denied when defect in raw material is detected after it undergoes certain process of manufacturing and whether it can be said that such raw material has not been used in the manufacture of final product?
Facts & Background:
Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. (“the Assessee” or “the Respondent”) are manufacturers of Toughened (Tempered) and Laminated Safety Glasses for Automobiles (“the glasses” or “final product”) falling under Chapter Heading No. 7004.10 and 7004.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For manufacturing of final product, the Assessee was getting float glasses (“float glasses” or “Inputs”) as the main raw material and accordingly was taking Cenvat credit thereon. Since the Assessee was receiving float glasses in packaged form, some float glasses were found to be defective during manufacturing process and could not be used for final production.
The Department denied Cenvat credit on float glasses alleging that the Inputs were inherently defective and were neither used nor usable ‘in or in relation to manufacture of final product’. The Assessee approached the Hon’ble Settlement Commission and in the Application, it was admitted that the Assessee had received float glasses in packaged form and on the opening of the wooden boxes, certain float glasses were found to be broken and they were not used as Inputs while undertaking the manufacturing process. On that basis, it was admitted by the Respondent that Cenvat credit availed on the aforesaid defective float glasses amounting to Rs. 56,39,370/- had to be reversed.
However, the Hon’ble Settlement Commission opined that, in addition to broken float glasses, parts thereof were also found to be defective and not used for the final production. Hence, Cenvat credit availed by the Assessee amounting to 3,47,38,325/- (additional) also had to be reversed.
Thereafter, on Writ Petition being filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that once the float glasses were used for manufacture and manufacturing process had started and thereafter, if some latent defect was found and said portion had to be discarded, it cannot be said that it was not used for manufacturing of final product as Inputs. Accordingly, the case was remanded back to the Hon’ble Settlement Commission to consider the matter afresh.
Being aggrieved, the Department preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court pleading that the Hon’ble High Court had no extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to tinker with Order of Settlement Commission and thus, the High Court has exceeded its limits of jurisdiction by examining the matter afresh.
Held:
The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court has not interfered with the factual aspects which were recorded by the Settlement Commission in its judgment. However, the High Court has stated the correct legal position where the Settlement Commission had gone wrong in law by concluding that Cenvat credit cannot be claimed on the discarded material which was found to be defective during manufacturing process. Thus, the High Court acted well within its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department and directed the Settlement Commission to take up the application of the Assessee, in terms of the judgment passed by the High Court and decide the same as early as possible and preferably within six months.
Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavours. In case of any query/ information, please do not hesitate to write back to us.
Thanks & Best Regards.
Bimal Jain
FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons)
Delhi:
Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor, Pocket - 1,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
Delhi – 110091, India
Desktel: +91-11-22757595/ 42427056
Mobile: +91 9810604563
Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 362
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...
Comments