9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant does not amount to manufacture (ii) the activity undertaken by the appellant is amounting to manufacture. In both the above situation, the appellant can take Cenvat Credit on the duty paid goods - In the facts of the present case, the appellants have brought the duty paid goods from various vendors and the same were repacked as per the requirements of export and goods were exported, even though the activity was not amount to manufacture, they have discharged excise duty. Therefore, in our view, the appellants have complied with the provisions of Rule 16 (1) and (2) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/993/08 - A/89718/17/EB - Dated:- 26-9-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Raju, Member ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, the finished products i.e., biscuits are not inputs and the same was not manufactured by the appellants. Therefore, on the said manufactured goods, the credit is not admissible. 2. Shri M.H. Patil, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellants have availed Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 where under it is provided that Cenvat Credit can be availed on duty paid finished goods also if the same is received in the factory of the assesee for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 16, it is provided that if the said duty paid goods is cleared without undertaking the manufacturing process, the same is permissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants have not undertaken either the said process or the process of the similar to that, therefore, even as Rule 16, the credit is not admissible. He placed reliance on the following judgements: a) Vignesh Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (189) ELT 213 (Tri-Chennai) b) Alamgir Another - 1959 AIR 436 = 1959 SCR Supl.(1) 464 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the Revenue has denied the Cenvat Credit on the duty paid goods received by the appellants in their factory on the ground that firstly no manufacturing activity was carried out by the appellants on the finished products and secondly, the appellant also not carried out any process specific under Rule 16. In this regard, we read Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4.1 From the above Rule 16, it is seen that the assesee shall be allowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of duty paid on the goods received in the factory for the purpose of re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reasons. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 16, it is provided that when such duty paid goods is cleared by the assesee under two situations (i) the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture (ii) the activity undertaken by the appellant is amounting to manufacture. In both the above situation, the appellant can take Cenvat Credit on the duty paid goods. The only condition is that if the activity does not amounts to manufacture, the appellant is required to pay duty which should be equivalent to Cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
