9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acking activity and discharge duty liability with an intention to gain any undue benefit - Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the appellant has made out a case in their favour for grant of stay and accordingly we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted. - E/87631/2013 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2013 - P R Chandrasekharan And Anil Choudhary, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Anupam Dighe, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr V R Kulkarni, Dy. Commissioner (AR) PER : P R Chandrasekharan The appeal and stay petition are directed against Order-in-Original No. Belapur/90/Tal/R-II/Commr/KA/12-13 dated 21/03/2013 Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se classifications were also approved by the Customs. Subsequently, w.e.f. August 2008, the products were reclassified under Chapter 39 vide CTEH 39119090 in respect of the first mentioned two product and with respect to the last mentioned product there was no change in the classification. In respect of the products classified under 3824 repacking from bulk to retail pack amounts to manufacture under Note 10 to Chapter 38 and accordingly, the appellant discharged excise duty liability on the added value after taking CENVAT credit of CVD paid on the imported goods. When the classification changed w.e.f. August 2008, the appellant failed to notice the change and continued to discharge duty liability under Chapter 38. When the products are c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty liability on the activity of repacking and this payment of duty by the appellant was not challenged by the Revenue. Revenue's contention is that the activity does not amount to manufacture and therefore, the appellant is not eligible for the credit of the CVD paid on the input materials. 5.1 As regards the contention that the appellant deliberately indulged in the aforesaid activity so as to avail ineligible credit, we do not find much force in this argument. Even if the appellant had not discharged any excise duty liability, they could have claimed drawback of the Customs and Excise duty paid on the input materials. Therefore, there is no incentive for the appellant to undertake repacking activity and discharge duty liability with an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
