2018 (6) TMI 578 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant denied CENVAT credit on customs duties; penalty set aside

The appellant, M/s Govik Electricals Pvt Ltd, was denied CENVAT credit on additional customs duties for goods cleared in a form not appearing to attain a ... Penalty - erroneous availment of CENVAT credit - trading activity or not? - the particle boards are first cut and then drilled, tapped, assembled and disassembled - Held that:- The scope of applicability of definition of manufacture to prefabricated structures/creations is not in doubt. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of the appellant that the goods that were cleared by them had, at some stage, been assembled into complete creations and thereafter disassembled for the purpose of transportation. However, the eligibility for availment CENVAT credit may well have been erroneously presumed but without deliberate intent to evade duty - penalty not warranted - appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Whether the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit on additional duties of customs for goods cleared in a form that does not appear to attain a new identity.2. Whether the goods cleared by the appellant can be considered as manufactured or not, impacting the availment of CENVAT credit.Analysis:1. The case involved M/s Govik Electricals Pvt Ltd, a manufacturer of transformer parts using particle boards for pre-fabricated furniture. The appellant assembled and disassembled the furniture components due to bulk constraints. The lower authorities considered the activity as trading, thus denying CENVAT credit on additional customs duties. The first appellate authority upheld this decision.2. The imported goods were described as compact laminates but cleared as laminated boards. The appellant argued that the goods required expert intervention to be usable, citing legal precedents. The dispute centered on whether the goods were manufactured or not. The tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the claim that the goods were assembled and disassembled for transportation. While the eligibility for CENVAT credit might have been presumed erroneously, there was no deliberate intent to evade duty.3. The tribunal found that the penalty imposed was not equitable given the circumstances. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the impugned order was modified accordingly. The judgment was pronounced on 01/05/2018 by Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical).This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the eligibility for CENVAT credit and the determination of whether the goods cleared by the appellant can be considered as manufactured, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the tribunal.