2018 (1) TMI 412 - AT - Central Excise

Successful Appeal: Auctioned Goods Classified as Capital, Duty Payment Reverses Cenvat Credit Denial

M/s. Shivom Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Silvassa

The appeal against the denial of Cenvat credit on goods purchased from an auction was successful. The Tribunal found that the purchased scrap, classified ... CENVAT credit - goods purchased from Hindustan Unilever Limited in auction, as capital goods - Held that: - it is fact on record and is recorded in the SCN that the scrap purchased by the appellant in E-Auction has been refurbished as capital goods and the same has been cleared on payment of duty. When this fact was in the knowledge of department, then the show cause notice was not required to be issued to the appellant. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant has not claimed refund of duty paid by them as refurbished goods. The goods in question do not amount to manufacture but the same has been cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, the duty payment made by the appellant on the said goods shall amount to reversal of amount as Cenvat credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Denial of Cenvat credit on goods purchased in auction.2. Classification of purchased scrap as capital goods.3. Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit on purchased goods.4. Liability for duty payment on cleared goods.5. Refund claim for duty paid on cleared goods.Analysis:1. The appellant appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit on goods purchased from Hindustan Unilever Limited in auction, classified as capital goods. The Revenue argued that as the appellant is in the Cosmetics and Toiletries manufacturing business, the purchased scrap cannot be considered capital goods for them, leading to proceedings for reversal of Cenvat credit, duty demand, interest, and penalties.2. The consultant for the appellant contended that the goods were cleared after refurbishing and duty payment, exceeding the Cenvat credit taken. Referring to a Bombay High Court decision, it was argued that if Cenvat credit was not allowable, the duty payment should be treated as a reversal of credit, making the proceedings against the appellant unsustainable.3. The Revenue countered that the purchased scrap was not used in manufacturing finished goods, thus disqualifying the appellant from Cenvat credit entitlement. Although duty was paid on cleared goods, the appellant did not file a refund claim for the duty paid.4. The Tribunal noted that the purchased scrap was refurbished as capital goods and cleared after duty payment, leading to the conclusion that the duty payment should be considered a reversal of Cenvat credit, as per the Bombay High Court precedent. Since the appellant did not claim a refund for the duty paid on the refurbished goods, the duty payment effectively reversed the Cenvat credit.5. Consequently, the impugned order denying Cenvat credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The decision highlighted the duty payment on cleared goods as effectively reversing the Cenvat credit, based on the nature of the activity and the absence of a refund claim.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues related to the denial of Cenvat credit on purchased goods, the classification of scrap as capital goods, the entitlement to credit, duty payment liability, and the absence of a refund claim for cleared goods.