9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2012 dated 30.3.2012 for the subsequent period (March 2009 to December 2009 and from Jan. 2010 to June 2010) wherein it was held that the activities of unpacking, repacking and relabeling amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and there is no dispute on these facts. Further, the repacked products were cleared on payment of duty on a higher value and the Department accepted the payment of duty on the final products. There is no justification to deny the credit on the goods used while accepting the duty on the final products. Having accepted the duty on the final products as manufactured, it is not open to the Department to deny the credit on the inputs that the final products were not ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in this case is denial of CENVAT credit on stock transfer from Ghaziabad to Hosur. The goods are labelleld at Hosur and sold which would amount to manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thus the inputs used for such activities are eligible for CENVAT credit. The learned counsel further submits that Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deems the activity of packing/ repacking or labelling/relabelling as a process of manufacture if it renders the product marketable to the customer. The appellant-assessee upon receipt of goods from their Ghaziabad factory, unpacks it and packs it according to the requirement of the buyers. This repacking is essential because the goods received from the Ghazia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tries - 2012 (277) ELT 149 (SC) 3. The learned AR for Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that the activities carried out by the appellant did not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that CENVAT credit availed at Hosur factory is not correct as the goods procured from the Ghaziabad factory were already marketable and the activities at Hosur factory do not amount to manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The activity namely repacking and relabeling carried out by the appellant was neither mentioned in the Note to Section XVI nor in the Note to Chapter 84 of CETA, 1985 as amount to manufacture. 4. On hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate from the decision taken by the predecessor Commissioner. Accordingly, I pass the following order. 12I confirm that the activities of unpacking, repacking and re-labelling of Piston, piston rings, piston assemblies falling under Chapter sub heading 84099114 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 by M/s. Shriram Pistons Rings Ltd. amounted to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with S. No. 100 of the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the notes thereof. 13. I hereby drop all further proceedings initiated in the SCN No. 3/2011 dated 4.2.2011 with consequential relief. 5. It is seen from the above adjudication order that the activities of unpacking, repacking and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
