TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2017 (herein after, referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune-I, Pune. 2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC), Ministry of Finance have issued Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax dated 19.06.2017, as amended, for prescribing territorial jurisdiction of Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise for various Commissionerates across the country in exercise of the powers vested on them read with it under Sections 3 and 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 139 ibid. As per the said notification dated 19.06.2017, each of the Commissionerate is provided with specific jurisdiction, which inter alia con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce tax paid on input services. As the goods manufactured in the R&D Centre of the appellant are not subject to levy of Central Excise duty, the department had interpreted that CENVAT credit availed in respect of inputs exclusively used in R&D department of the appellant company is improper and therefore initiated Show cause proceedings for recovery of wrong availment of CENVAT credit during the period, (i) January, 2014 to August, 2014 for an amount of Rs.14,05,819/- and (ii) September, 2014 to March, 2015 for an amount of Rs.10,08,177/-. In adjudication of the SCNs dated 28.01.2015 & 21.09.2015 issued for the above duty demands, the original authority i.e., Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 30.12.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. The issue involved in this appeal is to examine whether the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on inputs which are exclusively used in the research and development (R&D) of the operations of the appellant; and whether the adjudged demands confirmed in the impugned order is legally sustainable. 8.1 Both sides agree that the issue arising out of the present dispute for the earlier periods have already been decided favourably in the case of the appellant vide Final Order dated 17.11.2017. We note that in such referred order, the issue under dispute has been discussed thread bare including the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on inputs used for R&D purpose and the demand of such CENVAT credit by the department; and it has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement to Cenvat credit flows from Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in accord with which such inputs as that used in the production of output is eligible for credit. The issue therefore crystallizes on this pivot: whether the ancillary functions that support the manufacturing facility do contribute to output for the purposes of availment of credit. 6. It is here that the definition of manufacture in Central Excise Act, 1944, referred to by Learned Counsel, may provide some elucidation. It would appear that apart from production of excisable outputs any activity that is incidental or ancillary also constitutes manufacture. That the output of such incidental or ancillary operations may not directly result in goods that are excisabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be in compliance with the definition of input in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 8. The Tribunal in V. Ramakrishna Rao v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2006 (205) E.L.T. 703 (Tri.-Bang.)] held thus - '6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The show cause notice issued to the appellants is not only based on the balance sheets but also on the raw material ledger for R & D issue register and the indent slips used for R & D. Therefore, the appellant cannot take advantage of the fact that the balance sheet is a public document and hence longer period is not applicable. There is clear evidence that inputs have been diverted for R & D purposes. The scope of the remand order of the Tribunal is very limi....