AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 were issued to the appellants demanding CENVAT credit of Rs.1,90,20,198/- along with interest and penalty; both the show-cause notices were adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 03.08.2012 wherein learned Commissioner, CGST Delhi-III has confirmed the recovery of credit along with equal penalty. Hence, these two appeals E/3655/2012 and E/3656/2012. 2. Ms. Krati Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the entire issue is settled in appellant's favour for the subsequent periods; this Bench vide Final Order No.61019/2017 dated 23.05.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the Department holding that export of sample vehicles/ prototype for testing and analysis is part of the manufacturing activity and hence, CENVAT credit is available to the appellant. Learned Counsel submits that Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides that a manufacturer of final product shall be entitled to avail the credit of specified duties in respect of inputs or capital goods received in the factory of the manufacturer for use in or in relation to manufacture of final products; it is not disputed that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles; before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TL 129 (SC). She also submits that as the demand itself is not sustainable, imposition of penalty cannot be justified. 6. Shri Narinder Singh, learned Authorized Representative for the Department submits that the contention of the appellants that the issue has been decided in favour of the appellants vide Final Order No.6109/2017 dated 23.05.2017 is incorrect as there is no finding on the issue; the said order discusses the export of prototypes; it's a moot point to see as to whether prototype can qualify to be excisable goods as per Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944; he submits that as per the definition, any goods should satisfy the twin conditions to be called as excisable goods; one the item should be specified under First or Second Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985 and the second is that the goods must be marketable i.e. they should be capable of being sold as such; as the prototypes exported by the appellants are not classifiable under First or Second Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985 and since the prototypes are not marketable, they do not qualify to be called goods; if any goods do not satisfy the definition under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 10th day of September, 2004; and (ii) any input service received by the manufacturer of final product or by the provider of output services on or after the 10th day of September 2004. 9.1. Rule 4 of CCR, 2004 prescribes conditions for allowing CENVAT credit it prescribes that: Rule 4: conditions for allowing CENVAT credit. - (1) the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer or in the premises of provider of output service. .... 2(a) The CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods received in a factory or in the premises of the provider of output service 4[or outside the factory of the manufacturer of the final products for generation of electricity for captive use within the factory] at any point of time in a given financial year shall be taken only for an amount not exceeding fifty per cent of the duty paid on such capital goods in the same financial year. 9.2. Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 lays down the obligations of a manufacturer for availing CENVAT credit. Rule 6. 1[Obligation of a manufacturer or producer of final products and a provider of taxable servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioners had manufactured both dutiable and exempted final product (packaged software and printed books respectively). The petitioner has taken credit on input used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products. If the exempted products are exported outside India the provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are applicable. Therefore, the bar provided under Rule 6(1) and the liability created under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not attracted. By denying to the petitioner from exporting the printed books under bond what the respondents want to do is in fact to levy 10% on the sale price of the printed books in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In our opinion this is wholly impermissible. The provisions as now contained in Rule 6 of the Credit Rules, 2004 were contained in Rules 57C and 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they stood prior to 1st April, 2000. From 1st April, 2000 till 30th June, 2001 similar provisions were contained in Rule 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the context of these Rules circular dated 8th November, 2001 of the Ministry of Finance was issued. It dealt with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excisable goods; when it is held, in above cases, that CENVAT credit is admissible to the goods exported even when they are exempt, there should be no bar for allowing CENVAT credit for goods which are not exempt as in the case of the appellants. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order tries to distinguish "excisable goods" from "finished goods"; she further submits that this proposition is not raised in the show-cause notice and to that extent, learned Commissioner has travelled beyond the show-cause notice which is not permissible. We find that even if it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that the motor vehicles exported by the appellants are not final products, the argument will not help the case of the Department for the following reasons: (i) In terms of Rule 2(h) of CCR, 2004 "final products" means excisable goods manufactured or produced from input or using input service. In terms of Rule 2(k) "Input" means all goods used in the factory by the manufacturer of the final products. In view of the definition of the "Input", the nature of input is not altered even if it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that the motor vehicles exporte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the bond submitted at the time of export. Department has accepted the bonds submitted by the appellants for export of vehicles for testing. In terms of Rule 19, excisable goods may be exported without payment of duty. By allowing exports under bond, Revenue has accepted that the goods exported by the appellant are excisable goods. A conjoint reading of Rule 19 of CER and definition of 'final products' would make it clear that the argument that the export goods are not final products is not acceptable. Further, there is nothing in Rule 19 to say that in case of breach of conditions of the bond, CENVAT credit attributable to the export goods shall be disallowed. The Department was within its right to take whatever action on the appellants for not adhering to the conditions of the bond. It is not on record whether any such action has been initiated by the Department. We are of the considered opinion that for the reason that export proceeds are not realized, CENVAT credit,which is otherwise admissible as per the discussion above, cannot be denied. 12. The appellants have claimed that testing of motor vehicles to ensure that they have all the safety mechanisms properly working in al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) (S.C.) or aluminium cans with rough uneven surface in Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 547 = 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.) or PVC films in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E. (1989) 1 SCC 602 = 1989 (40) E.L.T. 280 (S.C.) or hydrolysate in C.C.E. v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises (P) Ltd., (1989) 4 SCC 112 = 1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.) the finding in each case on the basis of the material before the Court was that the articles in question were not marketable and were not known to the market as such. The 'marketability' is thus essentially a question of fact to be decided on the facts of each case. There can be no generalisation. The fact that the goods are not in fact marketed is of no relevance." 9. It may be noticed that in the cases referred to in the passage, quoted above, the reasons for holding the articles "not marketable" are different, however, they are not exhaustive. It is difficult to lay down a precise test to determine marketability of articles. Marketability of goods has certain attributes. The essence of marketability is neither in the form nor in the shape or condition in which the manufactured articles are to be found, it is the commercia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(S.C.); Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 767 = 1997 (92) E.L.T. 315 (S.C.) and Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. - (2003) 4 SCC 12 = 2003 (152) E.L.T. 262 (S.C.)." 20. Thus, if a product is not saleable, it will not be marketable and consequently the process of manufacture would not be held to be complete and duty of excise would not be leviable on it. The corollary to the above is that till the time the step of manufacture continues, all the goods used in relation to it will be considered as inputs and thus, entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. In the present case, as aforesaid, each machine is tailor made according to the requirements of individual customers. If the results are not in conformity with the order, then the machine loses its marketability and is of no use to any other customer. Thus, the process of manufacture will not be said to be complete till the time the machines meet the contractual specifications and that will not be possible unless the machines are subjected to individual testing. Even though the revenue has alleged that the process of manufacture is complete as soon as the machine is assembl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting /quality process are indeed the inputs which are used in or in relation to manufacturing of final products. The nature of products manufactured by the Appellant is such that it is a must/ necessity that it needs testing and hence, the same forms an integral part of manufacture and without which it is not possible to manufacture the final products. 14. The Tribunal in the case of General Cement Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that: 3. We do not agree with the Department's contention. The Cement Concrete Poles in question were meant for supply to UP State Electricity Board against specific contracts. These Poles are used for distribution of electric energy and for tele-communication purposes. There is a specific requirement in the contracts that before the goods could be considered as fit for delivery, they had to pass the prescribed quality control test. For this purpose, about one per cent of the poles were selected at random and they were subjected to various specified tests till they broke in the testing process. The goods were despatched to the Electricity Board only after the samples had passed the prescribed tests. In the circumstances, it has to be held that ....