2022 (8) TMI 984 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows Cenvat Credit on CRM and Handling services for CRMB manufacturing

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & CX, Haldia Commissionerate

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the impugned order disallowing Cenvat Credit on CRM and Handling services used for ... Process amounting to manufacture - wrongful availment of MODVAT/CENVAT Credit on CRM and Handling Services used for manufacturing CRMB and subsequently utilization of the same for payment of Central Excise duty - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE-V VERSUS M/S. VISHAL PRECISION STEEL TUBES AND STRIPS PVT. LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 1287 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that when the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs stand utilized for payment of duty on the final product, there would be no requirement of reversal of the said credit even if the activity undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture. It is an undisputed position that the final product is treated as dutiable and duty is paid by the assessee. When once duty is paid by the assessee treating the activity as manufacturing activity by the Department, Cenvat credit is available and there is no question of denial of Cenvat credit. The impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Availment of Cenvat Credit on CRM and Handling services used for manufacturing CRMB.Whether the activity undertaken amounts to manufacture as per section 2(f) of the Act.Dispute regarding disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Input Services.Analysis:Issue 1: Availment of Cenvat Credit on CRM and Handling services used for manufacturing CRMBThe Appellant, engaged in the manufacture and sale of petroleum products, used Crumb Rubber Modifier (CRM) to produce Crumb Rubber modified Bitumen (CRMB) at the Haldia refinery. The dispute arose when Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.11,62,425/- was disallowed by the adjudication order, along with the imposition of interest and penalty. The Appellant argued that the duty paid on the CRMB cleared from the refinery was more than the Cenvat Credit availed, and no refund was claimed on the excess amount paid. The Tribunal considered the arguments and relied on previous decisions to conclude that when Cenvat credit availed on inputs is utilized for duty payment on the final product, there is no obligation to reverse the credit, even if the activity does not strictly amount to manufacture.Issue 2: Whether the activity undertaken amounts to manufacture as per section 2(f) of the ActThe Revenue contended that the Appellant wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on CRM and Handling Services for manufacturing CRMB, arguing that the process did not constitute manufacture as per section 2(f) of the Act. The Appellant, supported by the Authorised Representative, cited various decisions to support their case. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decisions, emphasizing that if duty is paid by the assessee treating the activity as manufacturing, Cenvat credit is available, and there is no basis for denial of the credit.Issue 3: Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Input ServicesThe Authorised Representative for the Appellant argued that as Handling Services were used before the place of removal, there was no justification for disallowing Cenvat Credit on Input Services. The Tribunal, considering the arguments and judicial pronouncements, found the impugned order unsustainable. Citing authoritative judicial decisions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the impugned order disallowing Cenvat Credit on CRM and Handling services used for manufacturing CRMB, based on established legal principles and precedents.