M\/s Bilt Graphic Papers Products Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, BBSR
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1443 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 7-5-2018
Ex.Appeal No.75562\/18 – FO\/76521\/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nShri S. C. Mohanty, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
\nShri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P. K. Choudhary :
\nThis is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.11\/CE\/BBSR-GST\/2017 dated 22.11.2017 passed by Commr. of GST, Central Excise & Customs, BBSR.
\n2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant, M\/s Bilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd. (formerly known as Ballarpur Industries Ltd.) is engaged in the manufacture of writing and printing paper classifiable under Chapter 48 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in its unit Sewa located at Jeypore in the district of Koraput, Odisha. The appellant is also having other m<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n vailed irregularly along with interest and to impose penalty. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit amounting to Rs. 2,09,739\/- and ordered for recovery of the same along with interest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,04,870\/- under Section 11AC (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n aid cenvat credit so availed towards payment of Central Excise duty payable on the final product cleared from the factory. It is the case of the Revenue that since the assessee did not use the inputs in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods and accordingly, the services used in procuring the inputs would not qualify for availing cenvat credit. I find that the CBEC vide Instruction F.No.96\/85\/2015\/CX.I dated 07.12.2015 has observed, on the reversal of cenvat credit in respect of services paid on the input services, as under : = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n vices for a reason. Input services are consumed once the inputs and capital goods are received in the factory. Thus on receipt of inputs and capital goods, the associated input services have to be considered as consumed within the factory and become a cost to the business. Demand for reversal o the input services credit, when such input services cannot be reused, unlike inputs and capital goods which are available for reuse would not be fair to the trade. Therefore, the conference concluded that the present rule represents the correct provision in accordance with the principles of input tax credit. Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, does not need any amendment. Audit Para may be replied accordingly”. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n letion of the said process, iron ore fines were generated. It is the case of the Revenue that these iron ore fines were not used in the manufacture of their final product, namely, sponge iron, but were sold in the market. Therefore, since the iron ores were sold as such without being used in the manufacture of products, proportionately the Cenvat credit availed on GTA services for bringing iron ore to the factory were required to be reversed under Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I do not find merit in the said allegation of the Department on two counts; firstly, the input iron ores after being brought to the factory, were subjected to the process of screening and process of screening as explained by their ld. Advocate, would definitely a part of the manufacturing process. After the iron ores are subjected to the process of screening, the same could not be called as input as such. Secondly, I find that Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is directed for reversal of Cenva<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ifically talks about the Cenvat credit on any input or input service used in the manufacture of final product. This rule pertains to refund in case of exports, which stands altogether on different footings. Once the rule-making authority has defined the terms specifically and used the same in different provisions consciously, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that merely by analogy even if in one provision both the terms have been used, the same should be read in the other provision as well, where it has not been specifically mentioned, has no legs to stand, as the tax cannot be levied merely by inference or presumption. It is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. Words cannot be added or substituted so as to give a particular meaning. ……” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Bilt Graphic Papers Products Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, BBSRCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 1443 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 7-5-2018Ex.Appeal No.75562\/18 – FO\/76521\/2018Central ExciseSHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri S. C. Mohanty, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per … Continue reading “M\/s Bilt Graphic Papers Products Ltd. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, BBSR”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant Company filed a written statement along with copies of relied upon decisions and submits that the recovery provisions under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, are not applicable to the present case inasmuch as the said provisions are applicable to the cases of wrong availment\/utilization of the Cenvat Credit. Whereas in the present case, the credit was availed by the appellant against the prescribed documents issued by the service providers <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“B.26- Meerut Zone- CENVAT Credit – Reversal of Cenvat Credit in respect of service tax paid on Input Services :
\nIssue :
\nRule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides as under :
\n” When inputs or capital goods, on which CENVAT Credit has been taken, are removed as such from the factory, or premises of the provider of output service, the manufacturer of the final products or provider of output service, as the case may be, shall pay an amount e<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. I find that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Seven Star Steels Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, Customs & S. Tax, BBSR II reported in 2013 (30) STR 532 (Tr<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. The same view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Chitrakoot Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Chennai (cites supra). Th<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n