9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. Sh. K.B.K. Raju, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in both appeals being the same, they were heard together and are disposed by this common order. 2. The appellants are manufacturing High Carbon Ferro Chrome (HCFC) falling under chapter subheading 7202.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit on inputs & capital g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , held that there is no manufacturing process Involved and that materials fail to satisfy the definition of input given under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules (CCR), 2002 and set aside the order passed by adjudicating authority. The appellant is thus before the Tribunal. 4. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel, Ms A.S.K. Swetha submitted that the appellants had cleared the final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1252 Cestat, New Delhi] 5. The learned AR, Sri K.B.K. Raju defended the impugned order and submitted that the input as well as finished product fall under the same chapter heading 7202. Thus no new, distinct product emerges. Therefore, the process does not amount to manufacture. The appellants have erroneously paid duty and therefore are not eligible to avail credit on inputs used for activity wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 167 (T) and a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE v. Creative Enterprises reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.) has held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture. Admittedly, similar view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
