75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

September 2015

[2015] 59 taxmann.com 13 (New Delhi – CESTAT) R.B. Steel Services vs. CCE & ST.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
The CENVAT credit on inputs used for manufacture of final product can be used for payment of duty erroneously charged on such exempted final product.

Facts:
The adjudicating authority held that converting black rods/ bars into bright bars did not amount to manufacture during the relevant period and therefore the CENVAT credit taken on capital goods/black rods/bars used for making bright bars was not admissible. The appellant paid duty on their product, namely bright bars and the total duty paid by them was more than the amount of credit taken.

Held:
The Tribunal held that, converting black rods/bars into bright bars do not amount to manufacture as the said issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court against the assessee. However, relying upon various judicial pronouncements including decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises vs. CCE 2013 (288) ELT 247 (Tri. – Mum) which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it held that CENVAT credit is allowed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2015 (39) STR 331 (Tri.-Ahmd) Memories Photography Studio vs. Commr. of C. Ex. & S. T., Vadodara

2015 (39) STR 350 (Tri.-Bang.) CCE, Cus. & S. T., Visakhapatnam – I vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.