Order Date – 05 June 2023

Parties: M/s Sarva Mangalam Gajanan Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bolpur

Facts – 

• The Appellant, M/s Sarva Mangalam Gajanan Steel Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in manufacture of M/s Flat Bar, MS Channel, MS Round, Angle, MS Ribbed Bar & Melting Scraps falling under TSH No. 72149190, 72165000,72142090 & 72044100 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. 
• A Show Cause Notice dated 23/04/2015 was issued to the Appellant alleging that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 3 read with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, inasmuch as they have wrongly availed CENVAT credit on Scrap (Misrolls & End Cuttings), MS Scraps. TMT Cuttings, MRM Rolls Spoil.
• Another Notice was issued earlier on 28.02.2013 covering the period 21.06.2008 to 23.03.2010, proposing disallowance of CENVAT credit

Issue – 

• Whether the denial of Cenvat credit is in order?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that there is no evidence brought on record to show that the impugned goods purchased by the Appellant from IISCO and other manufacturers on payment of duty has not been used in the factory.
• Further, the Rerolled products, MS Flat/Bar, MS Angle, MS Channel, MS Round etc, manufactured by the Appellants have been cleared on payment of central excise duty. As the inputs on which credit has been availed, were used in the manufacture of dutiable final products, the CENVAT credit availed on these inputs cannot be denied.
• In view of the above, it was held that the Appellants are eligible for the CENVAT credit availed on the ‘inputs’ used in the manufacture of their final products namely, Rerolled products, MS Flat/Bar, MS Angle, MS Channel, MS Round etc and hence the demands made in the impugned order is not sustainable.
• When a show cause notice was already issued and the facts are in the knowledge of the authorities, then another notice cannot be issued on the same facts alleging suppression of facts. Thus, it was held that the Notice dated 23/04/205 issued on the same ground and the impugned order confirming the demands made in the Notice are not sustainable on the ground of limitation also.
• Impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed.