9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... process. As per the provision of Rule 16(2) assesse is supposed to discharge excise duty equivalent to Cenvat credit availed in case of process does not amount to manufacture and excise duty payable on the transaction value in case activity amounts to manufacture. As per this provision whether activity on the duty paid goods brought into factory is manufacture of otherwise, the duty paid goods to be treated as input and credit is allowed - demand set aside. Reliance also placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Versus M/s Fine Packaging Pvt Ltd [2016 (3) TMI 801 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. As regard the demand of ₹ 8,43,320/- appellant have admitted the same therefore demand of ₹ 8,43,320/- along w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d confirm the Central Excise duty short paid amounting to ₹ 8.43,3201- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty only) from M-s. Krishna Fabrications Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 8, F-11 Block, NAID0, Pimpri, Pune - 411 018 under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 1 further order that the amount paid by M/s. Krishna Fabrications Pvt. Ltd. (i.e. ₹ 8726,786/- Basic Excise Duty vide Cenvat Entry No.1421 dated 17/02/2005 and ₹ 15,538/- Education Cess vide Cenvat Entry No. 1515 dated 27/02/2005) be adjusted against the aforesaid duty demand. 5. I order recovery of Interest on the duty so determined under the provisions of Section I 1AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from M/s. Krishn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rong availment of credit, there is case of short payment of Central Excise duty of ₹ 8,43,320/-. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant filed this appeal. 2. Shri. S. Narayanan, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the activity of making semi finished goods to finished goods is amount to manufacture in terms of Note 6 of Section XVII of Central Exicse Tariff Act, 1989. Therefore denial of cenvat credit on the ground that appellant have not carried out manufacturing activity is not correct and legal. He alternatively submits that since the appellant after finishing of the frame assembly cleared the goods on payment of duty which is more than Cenvat credit availed, no further demand can be made as the Cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity does not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) accordingly, appellant is not entitle for the Cenvat credit on the duty paid goods received by them. The identical issue has been considered time and again by this Tribunal. In this regard, relevant provision of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 reads as under: RULE 16. Credit of duty on goods brought to the factory. - (1) Where any goods on which duty had been paid at the time of removal thereof are brought to any factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason, the assessee shall state the particulars of such receipt in his records and shall be entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid as if such goods are received as inputs under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f process does not amount to manufacture and excise duty payable on the transaction value in case activity amounts to manufacture. As per this provision whether activity on the duty paid goods brought into factory is manufacture of otherwise, the duty paid goods to be treated as input and credit is allowed. This issue has been considered in various judgments particularly in the judgments cited by the Ld. Counsel, same view has been taken by this Tribunal in case of Tata Steel Ltd and Fine Packaging Private Ltd(supra) . Accordingly, appellant is entitle for the Cenvat credit. We therefore set aside demand of Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 42,15,215/- and corresponding interest and penalty. 5.1 As regard the demand of ₹ 8,43,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
