9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had discharged central excise duty which has been accepted by the Revenue. In the entire proceedings before us, we find that the classification described by the appellant as to the products which are falling under Chapter Heading 3926, remains the same and is not disturbed by the adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority. This itself is an indicator that the original input, P.U. foam block, has undergone change and is now other than the inputs which were procured by the appellant. When the appellant is discharging central excise duty on the products which they consider as manufactured products and the Revenue authorities also having accepted the central excise duty, in our considered view, the appellant eligible, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot amount to manufacture and availment of cenvat credit on P.U. form blocks was irregular. Show cause notice was issued for confirmation of demand with interest and also for imposition of penalty. The appellant contested the issue on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and also imposed equivalent penalty. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred. The first appellate authority, after following the due process of law, did not agree with the contentions of the appellant and rejected the appeal. 3. The learned counsel would take us through the show cause notice as also both the orders. He would bring to our notice the products manufactured by the appellant though loosely t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of marble blocks into slabs, no new product is coming into existence, hence not a manufacturing activity. He would also rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, New Delhi-I vs. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (186) ELT 385 (SC), for the same proposition. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the appellant is eligible to avail cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on P.u. foam blocks which are inputs for their final product which is described by them as P.U. foam sheet. 7. From the perusal of the records, we find that the appellant is procuring P.U. foam blocks which are covered under Chapt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue and it was held in favour of the assessee inasmuch as the ratio stated is when an assessee considers the activity as amounting to manufacture, then the question of availing cenvat credit cannot be denied by holding that there is no manufacture. This ratio has been upheld by the apex court as already indicated in this order. 10. As to the various case laws cited by the learned departmental representative, we find that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Creative Enterprises and Ajinkya Enterprises (supra) are directly on the point and will have more persuasive value. 11. In view of the foregoing and the judicial pronouncements as also in the facts and circumstances of this case, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
