2023 (11) TMI 253 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit allowed for electronic capacitor grade metalized plastic film production as process constitutes manufacture under Chapter 3920 2090

Tibrewala Electronics Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal

Tibrewala Electronics Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal - TMI Issues involved:The issue involved in this Appeal is whether Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods totalling Rs.5,27,19,623/- has been rightly disallowed for the period March 2005 to February 2006, on the ground that the activity of the Appellant i.e., the process of making electronic capacitor grade metalized dielectric plastic film (MPP film), falling under Chapter 3920 2090 of the CETA, 1985, does not amount of manufacture.Judgment Details:1. Issue of Manufacturing Process:The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of capacitors and Electronic Capacitor Grade Metallized Dielectric Plastic Film (MPP Film). The department contended that the process of making MPP from plastic film does not amount to manufacture. The Ld. Commissioner denied the credit on inputs and capital goods on this ground, citing a previous Supreme Court decision. The Appellant argued that the metallization process does amount to manufacture and paid duty accordingly. They cited various judgments and technical clarifications to support their position. The Tribunal found that the process of making MPP Films amounts to a manufacturing process, as clarified by an amendment to the CETA and previous Tribunal decisions. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit, which was wrongly disallowed.2. Denial of Cenvat Credit:The Appellant also argued that even if the MPP Films were cleared to DTA on payment of duty, they have undertaken manufacturing activity, and credit cannot be denied as the output excise duty was discharged. They relied on precedents to support their claim. The Tribunal agreed that the Appellant's manufacturing activity justifies the credit availed, and the denial of credit on inputs used for final dutiable products is not sustainable. Therefore, the Appeal was allowed, and the Appellant is entitled to consequential benefits.3. Capital Goods Credit:The Appellant contended that credit on capital goods used for manufacturing intermediary products consumed in the production of dutiable goods should not be denied. They cited relevant decisions to support their argument. The Tribunal agreed that the Appellant is eligible for credit on capital goods used in the manufacturing process, and the denial of credit on the ground of manufacturing non-excisable goods was unfounded. The Appellant's claim for credit on capital goods was upheld.4. Stock of Goods and Exports:The Appellant also raised issues regarding stock of goods, export of MPP Films, and the denial of credit on inputs used for export. They argued that they have paid duty on exports and claimed rebate, entitling them to credit. The Tribunal found that once the rebate order is sanctioned and refunded, the Appellant is entitled to credit on inputs used for export. The denial of credit on the grounds of process not amounting to manufacture was deemed unsustainable. The Appellant's claim for credit on inputs used for export was upheld.Conclusion:The Tribunal found in favor of the Appellant on all issues, holding that the process of making MPP Films amounts to a manufacturing process. Therefore, the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit wrongly disallowed by the Impugned Order. The Appeal was allowed, and the Impugned Order was set aside, granting the Appellant consequential benefits in accordance with the law.