Weldflux Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appellant on the duty paid by the supplier of wire rods. it is the contention of the revenue that the duty ought not to have been paid by the manufacturer of wire rods in view of the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of m/s. technoweld, and hence cenvat credit of such duty is inadmissible.4. it is seen that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the retrospective amendment of the rule 16 of central excise rules. there is also board circular which says that the modvat credit of the duty paid on such redrawn wire cannot be denied to the purchasers. the division bench of the tribunal in the case of supreme heatreaters pvt. ltd. vide its final order no. a/1321/wzb/2005/c2/eb dt. 28.10.2005 held as under: we find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the tribunal by various decisions. reference may be made to the tribunal's decision in the case of psl holding ltd. v. commissioner of central excise rajkot drums v. commissioner of central excise, vapi . reference has also been placed upon the hon'ble supreme court's decision in the case of commissioner of central excise, vadodara v. narmada chematur pharmaceuticals ltd......

Judgment:

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.AT/382/M-II/2006 dt/21/6/2006. The appellants are absent despite notice but filed written submission and requested to consider the issue on the basis of the written submission. The written submission is taken on record.

2. Heard the ld. JDR, who reiterates the findings of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Considered the submissions made by the Ld. JDR and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of modvat credit to the appellant on the duty paid by the supplier of wire rods. It is the contention of the Revenue that the duty ought not to have been paid by the manufacturer of wire rods in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Technoweld, and hence Cenvat credit of such duty is inadmissible.

4. It is seen that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the retrospective amendment of the Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules. There is also Board Circular which says that the modvat credit of the duty paid on such redrawn wire cannot be denied to the purchasers. The division bench of the Tribunal in the case of Supreme Heatreaters Pvt. Ltd. vide its final Order No. A/1321/WZB/2005/C2/EB dt. 28.10.2005 held as under: We find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal by various decisions. Reference may be made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of PSL Holding Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Rajkot Drums v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi . Reference has also been placed upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC). Wherein modvat credit sought to be denied by the revenue on the ground that the final product was exempted, was held available to the assessee on the ground that the entire exercise was revenue neutral. The ratio of the above decisions fully applied to the facts of the instant case.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

5. Accordingly, I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, I do so, appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.