2013 (6) TMI 611 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - CR Coils - revenue authority are holding that this activity of slitting of CR Coils does not amount to manufacture and have denied the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant. - Held that - the order of this tribunal in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (2013 (6) TMI 610 - CESTAT MUMBAI) is squarely on the issue, which has been upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay 2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT as has been correctly pointed out by the learned counsel. - a strong prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. - stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat credit on CR Coils due to slitting activity not amounting to manufacture.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant concerning the cutting and slitting of CR Coils, with the revenue authority contending that such activity does not constitute manufacturing, thus disallowing the credit. The appellant argues that the issue is similar to a previous tribunal judgment in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The appellant relies on specific paragraphs of the tribunal's order to support their case, emphasizing that the facts align with those in the present matter.

2. The departmental representative echoes the adjudicating authority's findings, maintaining the stance on denying the Cenvat credit to the appellant based on the non-manufacturing nature of the slitting process. However, upon careful examination of the arguments from both sides and a thorough review of the records, the tribunal finds that the issue at hand is indeed the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant due to the cutting and slitting of CR Coils not being considered as manufacturing activity. The tribunal acknowledges the precedent set by the Ajinkya Enterprises case, which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, reinforcing the relevance of the previous judgment to the present case.

3. The tribunal concludes that the appellant has established a strong prima facie case warranting the waiver of the pre-deposit of the disputed amounts. Consequently, the tribunal grants the application for the waiver of pre-deposit, halting the recovery process until the appeal is resolved. Both parties express the urgency of an early hearing due to the substantial amount involved. Recognizing the significance of the case, the tribunal orders the matter to be listed for disposal on a specified date to ensure timely resolution and address the substantial financial implications at stake.