9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 760 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - entitle for cenvat credit - whether the process of cutting/ slitting of cold rolled or hot rolled stainless steel coils/ plates of various length, width and thickness into coils of specific width as also de-coiling of such cold rolled or hot rolled stainless steel coils/ plates and cutting them into sheets of specific dimensions amount to manufacture as defined in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - Tribunal and this Tribunal in the case of Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd. vs. Commr. of C.Ex, Raigad (2014 (9) TMI 658 - CESTAT MUMBAI ) held that the activity of the appellant is amount to manufacture and appeal was allowed on the merit as well as on limitation. From the Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, it can be seen that even if activities are not amount to manufacture, credit on duty paid goods as inputs is allowed and the same can be utilized for payment of duty on the processed goods. Therefore, in view of the Rule 16, credit can not be denied even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. As per the above position, we are of the considered view that impugned order is not sustainable; hence the same is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
Whether the process of cutting/slitting of stainless steel coils/plates into specific dimensions amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and if the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on inputs used in the process. Analysis: The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner regarding the manufacturing status of cutting/slitting stainless steel coils/plates and cenvat credit eligibility. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar activity was deemed manufacturing. The Tribunal ruled that even if the activity did not amount to manufacture, Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 allowed credit on duty-paid goods as inputs for payment on processed goods. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable based on Rule 16 and allowed the appeal.
|
