TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant. Two appeals No. E/26972 & 26973/2013 has been filed by the Department on the same issue, against the common impugned order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner (A). Since the issue in all these four cases is identical and it relates to the appellant-assessee M/s. Trident Power Craft Pvt. Ltd., therefore, all the four appeals are being taken up together for the purpose of discussion and disposal. The details of four appeals are given herein below: Sl. No. Appeal No. OIA No. Period Duty 1. E/849/2009 Order-in-Appeal No.26/2009 dated 6.7.2009 April to May 2007 Rs.5,98,088/- along with interest and penalty 2. E/191/2009 Order-in-Original No.140/2008-Commr. LTU dated 20.12.2008 April 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was issued to the appellant proposing to demand the irregular CENVAT credit along with interest and penalty. In the reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant supplied the documents like copies of job worker invoices, copies of sale of scrap invoices and copies of RG1 statement so as to show that they have received the material along with scrap, accounted and paid the duty on clearance of scrap. After following the due process, the original authority observed in the order that the job workers have sent these scraps to the appellant by raising the invoices and on payment of duty, the scrap was duly accounted for in the Daily Stock Register. In spite of this observation, the original authority came to the conclusion that scrap is not an i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is in fact much more than the amount of credit availed on the same. This is further established by the daily stock account maintained by the appellant and the same is also reflected in the returns. The learned consultant further submitted that the entire transaction is revenue neutral as duty was paid on removal of scrap on which credit was availed. The amount paid on removal of goods which were not processed to manufacture is nothing but reversal of credit availed and further demand is not sustainable. He also submitted that the credit was validly availed as duty and was being paid on removal of scrap. These scraps were not manufactured within the factory. He also submitted that the iron and steel was an input for the appellant in general....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is not sustainable. 5.4 In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions: PSL Holdings Ltd. vs. CCE: 2003 (156) ELT 602 (Tri.-Mum.) SG Zaveri Pharmapack vs. CCE: 2007 (217) ELT 591 (Tri.-Mum.) Vickers Systems International Ltd. vs. CCE: 2008 (229) ELT 298 (Tri.-Mum.) CCE vs. MP Telelinks Ltd.: 2004 (178) ELT 167 (Tri.-Del.) CCE vs. Alcobex Metals: 2003 (153) ELT 241 (SC) 6. On the other hand, the learned AR in the assessee's appeals defended the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) and Commissioner and in the Department's appeals, he has submitted that the impugned order dated 22.3.2013 vide which the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the present case also, the appellant has availed CENVAT credit on scrap received from the job workers based on the duty paid document and while at the time of clearance of the same, the appellant paid duty at the time of clearance which can be treated as reversal. Similarly, in other cases cited supra, it has been held by the Tribunal that if the credit is reversed, then the entire transaction is revenue neutral and demanding the reversal of CENVAT credit on technical ground is not tenable under law. 7.2 Further, I find that in the department's appeals, the Commissioner (A) vide impugned order dated 22.3.2013 where the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Commissioner (A) in para 11 of impugned order has giv....