Tin box manufacturer entitled to cenvat credit on inputs; Tribunal grants relief.

The appellant, a tin box manufacturer availing SSI exemption, was entitled to cenvat credit on inputs in finished goods and with the job worker, according to Rule 3(2) of CCR, 2004. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not required to reverse the cenvat credit as demanded by the Commissioner (Appeals). The second appeal was granted relief as a result of allowing the first appeal, with both appeals allowed with consequential relief by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of cenvat credit on raw material, work in progress, and raw material in finished goods after crossing the exemption limit.
2. Rejection of the refund claim related to denied cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a tin box manufacturer availing SSI exemption, faced disallowance of cenvat credit when the exemption limit was crossed. The appellant filed declarations and reversed cenvat credit during proceedings. The adjudicating authority found the appellant had taken credit correctly, except for a meager amount. The Revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the orders, leading to the current appeal. The Range Superintendent's verification report supported the appellant's credit claim, and discrepancies were attributed to calculation errors. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the cenvat credit on inputs in finished goods and with the job worker, as per Rule 3(2) of CCR, 2004. The appellant was not required to reverse the cenvat credit as demanded by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The second appeal was a consequential relief of the first appeal. The Tribunal granted relief in the second appeal as a result of allowing the first appeal. By setting aside the impugned orders, both appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court by the Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, Shri Ashok Jindal.

---