Tribunal grants cenvat credit on imported inputs, citing duty payment on final products.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the denial of cenvat credit on imported inputs. It found discrepancies in the Department's evidence and noted that duty paid on final products should entitle the appellant to cenvat credit, even if the processes did not amount to manufacture. Relying on established legal principles, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the denial of cenvat credit on imported inputs by the Department on the grounds that the inputs were not received in the factory and that the processes undertaken on the inputs did not result in manufacture.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Inputs not received in the factory
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, imported 7/8 Radio Frequency (RF) Cables and converted them into Jumper Cables and RF Feeder Cables. The Department alleged that the inputs were not received in the factory, based on statements of transporters. The appellant argued that processes were carried out in their factory, evidenced by expenses incurred, and duty was paid on the final products. The Tribunal found the Department's approach ambivalent and contradictory, as they also alleged that the processes did not result in manufacture. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the evidence provided by the Department and transporters, leading to a lack of confidence in the Department's claims.

Issue 2: Processes not resulting in manufacture
The Department alternatively claimed that even if the inputs were received in the factory, the processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture. The appellant argued that once duty was paid on the final products, cenvat credit on inputs should not be denied. The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including the Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court, which held that if duty on final products is accepted, cenvat credit need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. Following this settled principle of law, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and set aside the orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, based on the established legal principles regarding cenvat credit and manufacture.

---