CESTAT sets aside Rs.36 lakh CENVAT credit demand finding job-work goods under Notification 214/86-CE not exempted

CESTAT Allahabad partly allowed the appeal filed by UKB and allowed the Director's appeal in full while rejecting revenue's appeals. The tribunal set aside the entire demand of CENVAT credit of Rs.36,13,490/- on capital goods, finding that goods manufactured on job-work basis under Notification No.214/86-CE are not exempted goods and Rule 6(4) restrictions don't apply. The customs duty demand of Rs.49,60,092/- was also set aside due to insufficient evidence of diversion of imported "Housings." Only customs duty of Rs.3,98,149/- was confirmed. All penalties on UKB and personal penalties on its Director were set aside given the substantial reduction in duty demand.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 36,13,490/- on capital goods used for job-work under Notification No. 214/86-CE is sustainable, particularly in light of the principal manufacturer's failure to submit the required undertaking.

2. Whether the demand of Customs duty, CVD, and Additional Duty (Imports) amounting to Rs. 49,60,092/- on alleged diversion of imported "Housings" to another unit is justified.

3. Whether the demand of Customs duty, CVD, and Additional Duty (Imports) of Rs. 9,04,380/- on transfer of capital goods imported for use in a 100% EOU unit to other units is valid.

4. Whether the demand of CENVAT credit short paid/reversed amounting to Rs. 32,761/- on "Sleeves" transferred/sold to another unit is sustainable.

5. Whether the imposition of penalties on the company and its director under various provisions of the Central Excise Act, Customs Act, and CENVAT Credit Rules is justified.

6. Whether the quantum of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act should be equivalent to duty alone or duty plus interest.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Demand of CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods Used for Job-Work

Legal Framework and Precedents: The demand was premised on the contention that capital goods were not used for manufacture of dutiable final products but for job-work under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. The principal manufacturer had not submitted the required undertaking under this notification. The relevant provisions include Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which restricts credit on inputs used in manufacture of exempted final products.

Key precedents include the Madras High Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV vs. Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd., which held that goods manufactured on job-work basis are not exempted goods and Rule 6(4) does not apply. The Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise clarified that credit is admissible on inputs used in manufacture of intermediate products cleared without payment of duty, provided duty is paid on the final product. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sterlite Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise further elaborated that denial of credit on inputs used in job-work would frustrate the intent of the law and lead to discriminatory treatment.

The Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II v. SRF Ltd. reaffirmed these principles, and the Telangana High Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Lokesh Machines Ltd. (2024) also upheld the entitlement to credit on job-worked goods under Notification No. 214/86-CE.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the goods manufactured on job-work basis and cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-CE are not exempted goods. Therefore, Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which restricts credit on exempted goods, does not apply. The failure of the principal manufacturer to submit an undertaking does not disentitle the job worker to credit, especially when the payment of duty by the principal manufacturer is not disputed. The Court relied on the submission of ER-1 returns and certificates showing duty paid on final products.

Application of Law to Facts: The appellant had reversed credit initially but contested the demand on merits. The principal manufacturer's ER-1 returns and certificate from the supplier supported the claim that duty was paid on final products. The Court found the adjudicating authority's adverse finding on this issue to be perverse and incorrect.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that non-submission of undertaking by the principal manufacturer disentitles the appellant from credit. The Court rejected this, relying on judicial precedents that benefit under Notification No. 214/86-CE cannot be denied solely on this ground. The appellant's argument that duty on job-worked goods was never demanded was also accepted, negating the basis for denying credit.

Conclusion: The demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 36,13,490/- and appropriation of reversed credit was set aside.

2. Demand of Customs Duty on Alleged Diversion of Imported "Housings" to Pune Unit

Legal Framework: The demand was based on alleged diversion of imported duty-free "Housings" imported under Customs (Imports of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 1966. Section 28(2) and (10) of the Customs Act, 1962 were invoked for recovery of differential duty and interest.

Court's Reasoning and Findings: The Court examined the documentary evidence, including invoices showing transfer of "Housings" to the Pune unit and a certificate from the supplier confirming the goods supplied were "Housings." The Revenue's letter and statements did not conclusively establish diversion. The Court noted that initial failure to provide details could attract penalties but not sustain a duty demand. The absence of enquiry or dispute over the supplier's certificate was significant.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that mere failure to provide utilization details cannot be equated with diversion. The invoices and supplier's certificate were accepted as valid evidence. No adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant.

Conclusion: The demand of Rs. 49,60,092/- on account of diversion was not upheld.

3. Demand of Customs Duty on Transfer of Capital Goods Imported for 100% EOU Unit

Legal Framework: Section 28(2) and (10) of the Customs Act, 1962 were invoked for recovery of duty on capital goods imported for use in a 100% EOU unit but allegedly transferred to other units without payment of duty.

Evidence and Findings: The Panchnama drawn during the officers' visit recorded that certain machines were found uninstalled in the 100% EOU premises, including vertical injection moulding machines, plug testers, and a DG set installed on the roof. The Director's statement admitting transfer was rejected as being contrary to the Panchnama, which was contemporaneous evidence.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court reduced the demand from Rs. 9,04,380/- to Rs. 3,98,149/- by excluding duty on machines found uninstalled or installed in the EOU unit. The Court disallowed the Revenue's reliance on the Director's statement over the Panchnama.

Conclusion: Demand was partially confirmed to the extent of Rs. 3,98,149/-; the rest was set aside.

4. Demand of CENVAT Credit Short Paid/Reversed on "Sleeves" Transferred to Pune Unit

Findings: The appellant had paid certain amounts in excess and sought to adjust the short-paid duty against the excess. The Court found no justification for such adjustment and held the reasoning in the impugned order untenable.

Conclusion: The demand of Rs. 32,761/- was not sustained.

5. Imposition of Penalties and Demand of Interest

Legal Provisions: Penalties were imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Sections 114A and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Reasoning: Since the majority of duty demands were set aside, the Court held that interest and penalties related to those demands could not be sustained. Regarding penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, the Court noted that the liable person for penalty must be identified as per sub-section (8) of Section 28, which was not done correctly in the impugned order.

Conclusion: Penalties on the company and personal penalties on the Director were set aside except for those related to the confirmed duty demand of Rs. 3,98,149/- which were also found not sustainable under Section 114A due to procedural defects.

6. Quantum of Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act

Contention: The Revenue contended that penalty should be imposed on duty plus interest as per Circular No. 61/2002-Cus dated 20.09.2002.

Judicial Interpretation: The Tribunal in a recent decision held that penalty under Section 114A cannot exceed the amount of duty payable and cannot include interest. The Supreme Court in U.K. Enterprises also supported this interpretation.

Conclusion: The Court rejected the Revenue's appeals on this ground.

Significant Holdings

"Goods manufactured on job-work basis and cleared by availing benefit of Notification No.214/86, as amended, are not exempted goods and therefore Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 restricting CENVAT credit on capital goods is not applicable."

"Benefit of Notification No.214/86, as amended, cannot be denied only because the principal manufacturer has not submitted undertaking in terms of the notification, particularly when the payment of duty by the supplier is not in dispute."

"Mere failure to provide details of utilization of imported goods cannot form the basis for alleging diversion and demand of duty."

"Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot exceed the amount of duty payable and does not include interest."

"The burden of proof regarding diversion of imported goods lies on the Revenue, and in absence of conclusive evidence, demand cannot be sustained."

"Statements of officers recorded in Panchnama have primacy over contradictory statements made later by the accused or their representatives."

"Where demand of duty is not sustainable, corresponding demand of interest and imposition of penalty cannot be upheld."

The Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the company by setting aside the entire demand of duty, interest, and penalties except for a reduced demand of Customs duty, CVD, and Additional Duty (Imports) of Rs. 3,98,149/-. The appeal filed by the Director was allowed in toto, and the Revenue's appeals were rejected.

---