9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Kumar, Member (T) Shri C. Harishankar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Jain, Jt. CDR (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER These two appeals have been filed by M/s. G.S. Enterprises, Bhiwadi and its Prop. Shri Govind Singh against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 417-418 (MPM) C.E./JPR-I/2005 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal filed by M/s. G.S. Enterprises by setting aside the part of the demand confirmed vide Order-in-original and confirmed the duty demand to the extent of ₹ 14,54,089/-with penalty of equal amount and rejected the appeal of appellant Govind Singh confirming the penalty of ₹ 2.5 lacs and imposed on him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Briefly put the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... besides penalty of ₹ 2.5 lacs was imposed on appellant No. 2 Sh. Govind Singh under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, the appellants filed appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant No. 2 and maintained the penalty of ₹ 2.5 lacs. However, appeal filed by the company was partly accepted and the demand as well as penalty reduced to ₹ 14,54,089/- respectively. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have preferred above referred appeals. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that it is based on incorrect appreciation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ack the adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority were right in disallowing the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of the excise duty paid on the blades packed in combo pack along with razor. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Similar issue came up before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of CCEC ST, Daman v. Prime Health Care Products reported in 2011 (272) E.L.T. 54 (Guj.) and the High Court decided said appeal in favour of the assessee with the following observations :- 9. The Tribunal while disposing of the appeal, has observed that the combo-pack containing toothbrush reaches final stage of marketability only after the packet containing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is further supported by the provisions contained in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which defines the word manufacture . It includes any process in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, which includes packing or re-packing of such goods in a unit container. In the Third Schedule, at Serial No. 38, under Heading - Sub-Heading of Tariff Item, Entry No. 3306, is in respect of tooth paste. Hence, the process of packing and re-packing the input, that is, toothbrush and tooth paste in a unit container would fall within the ambit of manufacture as defined under the Act and as such, the assessee would be entitled to claim Cenvat credit on such input . 7. In our considered view the ratio of aforesaid case squarely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
