2013 (9) TMI 840 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules reheating steel forgings not manufacturing under Central Excise Rules

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the process of re-heating and re-forging steel forgings did not amount to manufacture under Rule ... Cenvat credit on returned goods - Rule 16 - Facility for dealing with goods requiring minor or more repair, reconditioning etc. and not for recycling their material, in which process they lose their identity in a manner that the material obtained after melting them is used partly or wholly for different set of goods afresh - Held that:- forgings are not melted at all but only re-heated and re-forged. Further the learned Consultant submits that in forging industry, there is no process involved as re-melting. As submitted by the learned Consultant, the Rule 16 provides as to how to take credit and Rule 16(2) envisages that if the process to which the rejected goods are subjected before being removed amounts to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay duty on the goods received under sub-rule (1) and if it does not amount to manufacture, appropriate Cenvat credit has to be reversed. The learned Consultant submits that it is not the case herein that the appellant has not reversed the Cenvat credit taken. In view of this, I find that the appellant has made out prima facie case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Demand of Cenvat credit on steel forgings sold and received for re-process- Compliance with Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002Analysis:The appeal challenged the decision demanding Cenvat credit on steel forgings sold and received for re-process. The appellant was alleged to have not followed the procedure under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal noted that the forgings were not melted but only re-heated and re-forged, with no process of re-melting involved in the forging industry. The Rule 16 was cited, emphasizing the requirement to pay duty if the process amounts to manufacture or reverse appropriate Cenvat credit if it does not. The appellant had reversed the Cenvat credit, leading the Tribunal to find a prima facie case in favor of the appellant for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay during the appeal's pendency.The Tribunal's analysis focused on the distinction between re-heating and re-forging versus re-melting in the context of Cenvat credit eligibility. It highlighted the importance of Rule 16 in determining the duty payment or credit reversal based on whether the process amounts to manufacture. The appellant's compliance with Rule 16 by reversing the Cenvat credit played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision to waive the pre-deposit requirement and grant a stay on recovery during the appeal process. This case underscores the significance of procedural adherence and the interpretation of rules governing Cenvat credit eligibility in the context of goods re-processing within the forging industry.