2019 (7) TMI 395 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant Granted CENVAT Credit for Manufacturing and Exporting GGBS

Toshali Cements Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax & Customs, Visakhapatnam-II

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order and confirming their entitlement to CENVAT credit on inputs for ... Refund of CENVAT Credit - input - Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GBFS) - Process amounting to manufacture - grinding Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GBFS) into Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) - Reliance placed in the case of REPRO INDIA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2007 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that appellant was entitled to refund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CCR 2004 in respect of the inputs which have gone into the manufacture of exempted GGBS which was exported. There is no reason to deviate from the decision already taken in this regard. It is undisputed that to the extent the GGBS is sold in the domestic market, the appellant has been reversing proportionate amount of CENVAT Credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Entitlement to CENVAT credit on Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GBFS) for manufacturing Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS).2. Availability of CENVAT credit on GGBS exported by the appellant.3. Distinction between refund of CENVAT credit and availment of CENVAT credit.Analysis:Issue 1: The appellant, a manufacturer of Slag Cement and GGBS, faced a show cause notice seeking recovery of CENVAT credit availed on GBFS used for converting to GGBS. The Revenue argued that as per a previous CESTAT decision, the grinding of GBFS into GGBS does not amount to manufacture, thus denying the appellant the CENVAT credit. However, the appellant relied on a Bombay High Court judgment and previous CESTAT decisions in their favor, allowing refund of CENVAT credit on GBFS. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's entitlement to the CENVAT credit on GBFS for manufacturing GGBS, as established in previous decisions, and set aside the impugned order.Issue 2: The appellant also sought clarification on the availability of CENVAT credit on GGBS exported by them. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions where the appellant was allowed a refund of CENVAT credit on GGBS under Rule 5 of CCR 2004. The Tribunal reiterated that the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit for exported GGBS was established in previous cases, and there was no reason to deny the credit itself. The appellant's practice of reversing CENVAT credit on GGBS sold in the domestic market was acknowledged.Issue 3: The distinction between refund of CENVAT credit and availment of CENVAT credit was emphasized during the arguments. The Revenue contended that since the process of grinding GBFS into GGBS was not considered manufacture, the appellant should not be entitled to avail CENVAT credit. However, the Tribunal maintained consistency with previous decisions and held that the appellant was entitled to both avail and refund CENVAT credit on inputs used for manufacturing and exporting GGBS. The Tribunal's decision was based on established case law and the appellant's adherence to reversing CENVAT credit on domestic sales.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief in favor of the appellant. The judgment reaffirmed the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on inputs for manufacturing GGBS and exporting the same, in line with previous decisions and legal precedents.