9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te and is registered for manufacture of packaged drinking water - similar issue decided in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. Versus CCE- Meerut-II [2015 (10) TMI 1133 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where in similar situation it was held that manufacture does not take place. The demand is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/340/2009 - Final Order No. 42126 / 2017 - Dated:- 18-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Appellants are manufacturers of packaged drinking water ('kinley' br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utting would result in manufacture and therefore duty has to be paid. The Ld. counsel submitted that appellant had no intention to manufacture such waste and no new product emerges out of such process of cutting of the waste plastic containers and therefore levy of duty is not sustainable. He relied on Tribunal's decision in Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. VS CCE Meerut-II 2015-TIOL-1797-CESTAT-DEL = 2016 (343 ELT 645 (Tri.-Del.) and also Apex Court judgment in Commissioner Vs Dhillon Kool Drinks Beverages Ltd. - 2002 (144) ELT A210 (SC). 3. Against this, Ld. A.R Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that cutting of the waste plastic containers was an activity incidental to the manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit availed inputs are cleared as waste, some amount in respect of the same is required to be paid. It is only sometime in 2005 that Rule 3(5) was introduced in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 specifically, providing that when Cenvat credit has been taken in respect of certain inputs or capital goods and the same are cleared as waste or scrap, an amount as specified in that sub-rule would be payable. During the period of dispute, there was no such provision. Moreover, the department in these cases, has demanded Central Excise Duty by treating glass waste as manufactured product and this issue has been examined in the Tribunals judgment cited by the ld. Counsel for the appellant on the basis of the Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
