9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the process undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture - Held that:- Stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal but reference can be made to the latest majority decision in the case of M/s. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III [2014 (9) TMI 974 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Originally there was difference of opinion between the two Members and the matter was referred to third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the activity undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture and as such they should not have paid the duty of excise on their final products. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of a show-cause notice dated 08.10.2012 proposing denial of cenvat credit, so availed by the appellant, during the period August 2007 to August 2011, by invoking the longer period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to third Member. As per the majority decision, the credit cannot be disallowed to the assessee when he has used the same for payment of duty on its final product, when there was no requirement of payment of duty on the final product. As the said decision takes into consideration the entire precedent decisions, by following the same we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
