9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant does not amount to manufacture is accepted, since admittedly the appellant have cleared the M.S. Profiles on payment of duty and the duty paid is more than the cenvat credit availed, the cenvat credit allegedly wrongly taken stands reversed and hence, there is absolutely no justification for demanding the allegedly wrongly taken cenvat credit once again. Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005 permits the clearance of the inputs as such on payment of an amount equal to the cenvat credit availed and if the Departments stand that the process does not amount to manufacture is accepted, the appellants activity would amount to clearing the cenvat credit availed inputs as such on payment of an amount which admittedly is not less tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 11 AB and also for imposition of penalty. Besides this, another show cause notice dated 28/02/2002 was issued for denial of cenvat credit of ₹ 1,32,22,779/-. The three show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 13.08.2013 by which while the demand of ₹ 1,32,22,779/- raised vide show cause notice dated 28.02.2002 was dropped, the cenvat credit demands of ₹ 27,32,382/- and ₹ 1,77,274/-were confirmed along with interest and penalties of equal amount were imposed. 2. Against this order of the Commissioner, these appeals have been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, Chartered Accountant, ld. Counsel for the appellants pleaded that the proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very thereof may be stayed. 5. Shri M.S. Negi, ld. Departmental Representative, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. Firstly, we find that the Tribunal in the two orders in the cases of Sanjay Industrial Corporation (supra) and Pioneer Profile Industries (supra) has held that the process of profile cutting of M.S. Plates and M.S. Sheets as per the design and drawings of the customer to make M.S. Profiles, Circles, Angles, etc. amounts to manufacture. Moreover, even if the Departments contention that the process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture is accepted, si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
