9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailed at the time of receipt of returned goods. The process does not amount to manufacture, therefore the differential duty demand is sustainable - Since the issue of short payment of duty was raised by the audit party there is a clear suppression of fact on the part of the appellant as the fact that what credit was availed and whether the same was paid or otherwise, was not disclosed to the department - demand with interest and penalty upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/88654/13 - A/90254/17/SMB - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Aparna Hirandagi, Advocate for Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty cannot be demanded as in terms of Rule 16(2) when the activity of the process is amount to manufacture the duty has to be paid under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on the transaction value. She submits that the appellant have carried out various processes including the process of galvanizing and redrawing the pipes which amount to manufacture as per Chapter Note No.3 4 of Chapter 73, therefore no differential duty demand is sustainable. She placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai - 2002(149) ELT 1096 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii) Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore - 2002 (144) E.L.T.647 (Tri.-Bang.) (iii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uer quoting etc. these processes do not amount to manufacture. As regard the claim of the appellant that they have carried out re-drawing of the pipes and also galvanizing process which is only a submission made by the appellant, however no evidence was produced to this effect, therefore it cannot be accepted that the appellant have carried out any other process such as galvanizing and redrawing of the pipe. In absence of these process whatever process carried out it does not amount to manufacture. Accordingly in terms of Rule 16(2) of the Rule, the appellant on the process not being manufacture required to pay duty equivalent to the amount of cenvat credit availed at the time of receipt of returned goods. The judgment relied upon by the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
