2014 (8) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ejpal, Adv For the Respondent : Shri. Shobha Ram, Comm. (AR) PER : P R Chandrasekharan 1. The appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. Belapur/31/Bel.I/R.IV /Commr/SLM/10-11 dated 25/11/2010 & Belapur/53/Bel.I/R.IV/Commr/SLM/10-11 dated 06/04/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Navi Mumbai. Vide the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has confirmed a duty demand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eld to be not amounting to "manufacture" and the payment of duty more than the credit taken would tantamount to reversal of credit. Therefore, the impugned demands are not sustainable in law. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE & C, Vadodara Vs. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., - 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC) and CCE Vs. Creative Enterprises - 2009 (243) ELT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 3. The learned Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that the appellants have undertaken only labeling of the goods, which does not amount to manufacture and if an activities does not amount to "manufacture", the question of paying duty or taking credit would not arise. Therefore, he pleads for upholding the impugned order. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X