2013 (12) TMI 980 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement for cenvat credit - Process of cutting and slitting amounts to manufacture or not - Waiver of pre-deposit Held that - Applicant cleared the goods on payment of duty - in assessee s own case it was held that process undertaken by the applicant would amount to manufacture - The applicant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty and equal amount of credit and penalty along with interest Pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty
- Contention regarding the demand of duty on merits and limitation
- Eligibility to avail Cenvat credit for the process of cutting and slitting
- Judicial precedents on whether the process amounts to 'manufacture'
- Dispute resolution based on payment of duty and High Court judgment
- Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery during appeal

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.51,06,276/- along with interest, credit, and penalty, concerning a dispute from Oct'06 and Nov'06, with a show cause notice issued on 12.10.2011. The advocate contested the duty demand on merits and limitation, arguing that the process of cutting and slitting of CRGO core laminations constitutes 'manufacture' under Chapter Heading 72251100 of the Tariff, making the applicant eligible for Cenvat credit. The Revenue, however, relied on a Supreme Court case to assert that such activities do not amount to 'manufacture.'

The Tribunal noted that the applicant cleared goods by paying duty and partially from PLA, and highlighted a judgment by the Madras High Court supporting the view that the process undertaken by the applicant qualifies as 'manufacture.' Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in the advocate's argument on limitation and the applicant's prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit, leading to the waiver of the entire duty amount, credit, and penalty, along with interest, during the appeal's pendency. The recovery of the waived amounts was also stayed pending the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the early hearing application, as no reason was found to grant it.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, the eligibility for Cenvat credit, the interpretation of 'manufacture,' and the resolution based on payment of duty and relevant judicial precedents. The decision reflects a balanced consideration of the legal arguments presented and the applicable precedents, ultimately leading to the grant of the waiver and stay of recovery during the appeal process.