9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri. K.V. Aravind, Advocate) Respondent: (By Sri. N. Anand, Adv.) JUDGMENT JAYANT PATEL J The present appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order, has allowed the appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. K.V. Aravind, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and Mr. N. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 3. We may record that the Tribunal in the impugned order at paragraph-2 has observed thus:- 2. It is undisputed that the appellants were paying duty of excise on their final product by utilizing the CENVAT credit. As such, the question required to be decided is that irrespective of the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 9 observed thus:- 8. We see no merit in the above contentions. As rightly contended by the representative of the assessee appearing in person, till 1st March, 2005 the Revenue has accepted that the activity carried on by the assessee constituted manufacturing activity in view of Bioard Circular dated 7th September 2001 and accordingly, held that the assessee is entitled to take credit of duty paid on HR/CR coils. It is only because, the Board, on 2nd March, 2005 has withdrawn the Circular dated 7th September, 2001, the Revenue is claiming that the activity carried on by the assessee does not amount to manufacturing activity. The question is, whether on the facts of the present case, the Revenue, based on the Circular dated 2nd Mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II vs. Creative Enterprises 2009 (235) E.L.T.785(Guj.) at paragraph-6 , it was observed thus:- 6. When one goes through the order of the first appellate authority, it is apparent that the respondent has been held to be a manufacturer as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority has taken into consideration the activities carried on by the respondent- assessee. The Tribunal is justified in holding that if the activity of the respondent-assessee does not amount to manufacture there can be no question of levy of duty and if duty is levied. Modvat credit cannot be denied by holding that there is no manufacture . 7. It is an undisputed position that the final product is treated as dutiable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
