Tribunal: Slitting & Pickling Not Manufacturing; Cenvat Credit Allowed; Penalty Set Aside

The Tribunal held that the process of slitting and pickling of HR coils does not amount to manufacturing. The appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on HR coils used in the process, as the duty paid on the final product exceeded the credit availed, resulting in revenue neutrality. The absence of a Section 5B notification did not affect the appellant's right to Cenvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that Board circulars cannot override judicial decisions. The penalty imposed on the appellant and its officials was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the process of slitting and pickling of HR coils amounts to manufacture.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on HR coils used in the process of slitting and pickling.
3. Applicability of Section 5B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Revenue neutrality and reversal of Cenvat credit.
5. Impact of Board Circulars on the issue.
6. Penalty imposition on the appellant and its officials.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the process of slitting and pickling of HR coils amounts to manufacture:
The judgment references the Hon'ble Delhi High Court case of Faridabad Iron & Steel Traders Association v. Union of India, which held that the process of cutting or slitting steel sheets in coils does not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal agreed that the activities of cutting or slitting of steel sheet in coils are non-manufacturing activities. However, the judgment does not explicitly address whether the pickling process alone constitutes manufacturing, leaving some ambiguity.

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on HR coils used in the process of slitting and pickling:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant availed Cenvat credit on HR coils and utilized the same for payment of duty on the final product. The appellant argued that the credit availed was effectively reversed by paying duty on the final product, which exceeded the credit availed. The Tribunal cited multiple decisions, including CCE v. Creative Enterprises and PSL Holdings Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot, which support the view that credit availed should not be denied if the duty paid on the final product exceeds the credit availed. The Tribunal concluded that the credit availed and utilized for payment of duty on the final product stands effectively reversed, and thus, should not be denied.

3. Applicability of Section 5B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 5B allows the Central Government to issue notifications for non-reversal of Cenvat credit when a process is held by the Court as not chargeable to excise duty. The Tribunal observed that the absence of such a notification does not preclude the appellant from contesting the issue on merits. The Tribunal emphasized that the precedent decisions of higher courts must be followed, and the absence of a Section 5B notification does not negate the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit.

4. Revenue neutrality and reversal of Cenvat credit:
The Tribunal found that the entire situation is revenue neutral because the duty paid on the final product by the appellant exceeded the credit availed. The Tribunal cited various decisions, including the Gujarat High Court's decision in CCE v. Creative Enterprises and the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Vadodara v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which support the view that the consequence of duty paid and credit availed being identical is revenue neutrality.

5. Impact of Board Circulars on the issue:
The Tribunal noted that the circulars issued by the Board, including Circular Nos. 911/1/2010-CX and 940/1/2011-CX, cannot override judicial decisions. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Faridabad Iron & Steel Traders Association, which held that quasi-judicial authorities should not be influenced by administrative instructions or directions. The Tribunal concluded that the circulars cannot estop the appellant from pursuing legal remedies before the courts.

6. Penalty imposition on the appellant and its officials:
The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner on the appellant and its officials. The Tribunal held that since the credit availed was effectively reversed by paying duty on the final product, the imposition of penalties was not justified.

Majority Order:
The majority order, delivered by Member (Judicial) and the Third Member (Technical), set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. The dissenting opinion by Member (Technical) was that the credit availed on inputs against a non-manufacturing activity is not available under the law and should be reversed. However, the majority view prevailed, and the appeal was allowed.

---