2010 (3) TMI 393 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules ingots not eligible as inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that M.S. Ingots and Alloy Steel Ingots did not qualify as inputs under Rule 4(6) of the Cenvat Credit ... Cenvat Credit- The respondent are manufacturers of M.S. ingots as well as Alloys Steel Ingots from Sponge Iron, they were also availing Cenvat credit facility in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished products. Held that- The product which can be sent to job worker must have the character of input either as such or partially processed, but it cannot be the finished product as the finished product ceases to be input as such or partially processed input. - Therefore, Rule 4(6) has no applicability and the respondent’s request for sending the Alloy Steel Ingots without payment of duty to the job worker for manufacture of Alloy Steel bars and removal of Alloy Steel bars from job worker’s premises, cannot be allowed. Commissioner (Appeals)’s order on this point is not correct and the same is set aside. Revenue’s appeal is allowed. Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 4(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding sending products to job worker.2. Classification of M.S. Ingots and Alloy Steel Ingots as inputs or finished products.3. Applicability of Rule 4(6) for clearance of products from job worker's premises.4. Commissioner (Appeals) decision review.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Rule 4(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding sending products to a job worker. The respondent, manufacturers of M.S. Ingots and Alloy Steel Ingots, sought permission to send Alloy Steel Ingots for manufacturing alloy steel bars on a job work basis. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the request, stating that the ingots were finished products, not inputs, hence Rule 4(6) did not apply. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, leading to the Revenue's appeal.2. The classification of M.S. Ingots and Alloy Steel Ingots as inputs or finished products was crucial. The Revenue argued that M.S. Ingots were finished products and could not be considered as inputs for further processing. On the other hand, the respondent claimed that Alloy Steel Ingots should be treated as intermediate products since they lacked the infrastructure to manufacture alloy steel bars directly. The Tribunal examined the nature of the products and their suitability as inputs for job work.3. The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Rule 4(6) for the clearance of products from the job worker's premises. The rule allows the removal of inputs or partially processed inputs to a job worker for further processing, subject to certain conditions. The Tribunal emphasized that only products with the character of input, either as such or partially processed, could be sent for job work. In this case, Alloy Steel Ingots were deemed unsuitable as inputs, leading to the rejection of the respondent's request.4. The Tribunal reviewed the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and concluded that the M.S. Ingots and Alloy Steel Ingots did not qualify as inputs under Rule 4(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The judgment clarified the distinction between finished products and inputs eligible for job work under the relevant rule.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the law.