9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l packs to bulk packs of the impugned goods which does not amounts to manufacture during the impugned period. Therefore, the demand of duty is not sustainable, consequently, penalty is also not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/370, 1996/06-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/591-592/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 11-3-2014 - Ashok Jindal, J. For the Appellant : Shri Vishal Kumar, Authorised signatory For the Respondent : Shri V C Khole, AR JUDGEMENT Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders wherein duty demands have been confirmed against them on the premise that the appellant has undertaken the activities of reprocessing of the goods. 2. Brief facts of the case are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The activity of repacking of duty paid finished paints from retail into bulk packs does not amount to manufacture, therefore, they are not liable to pay duty. It is further contended that they have not taken any CENVAT credit on the invoice issued by the M/s Asian Pains for re-packing. Therefore, they have not issued any invoices. The main reliance by the adjudicating authority is only on a inter office memo written by M/s Asian Paints dated 18.01.2001 wherein it has been stated that the goods were sent to the appellant for reprocessing. In fact, the person who has written this letter was not knowing the difference between re-packing and re-processing under the excise law. Further, it is contended that the appellant is not having any facil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flood and not gone into manufacturing, therefore, the appellants are required to reverse the credit taken thereon. The fact is that the appellant has paid duty on the transaction value. The appellant is directed to reverse the entire amount of credit taken on the inputs destroyed in floods. As there is no malafide intention of the appellant for taking credit on inputs destroyed in flood, therefore, no penalty is warranted. 7. In nut shell, it is held that the appellant is not required to pay duty on repacking of the goods and the appellant is required to reverse the entire amount of credit availed on inputs destroyed in flood and the penalty is not warranted. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in Court) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
