9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aggregates. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/85925/2015 - A/85111/18 - Dated:- 29-1-2018 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri JH Motwani, Advocate for appellant Shri SJ Sahu, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER M/s Uttam Galva Steels Limited is in appeal against order-in-appeal CD/145/RG/2014-15 dated 23rd January 2015 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone I, which has upheld the order of the lower authority disallowing CENVAT credit of ₹ 17,77,180/- on the ground that the credit wrongly availed on goods utilised in a process that did not amount to manufacture. Penalty of like amount has also been imposed under rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose and that is to discourage manufacturers from paying Excise duty on exempted goods. The clear effect of absolute exemption has been emphasized in this sub-section so as to discourage the practice of manufacturers paying duty on such excisable goods and which are exempted from payment of whole of Excise duty absolutely and, thereafter, claiming an adjustment or credit or refund or rebate or drawback. Therefore, the argument which appealed to the Tribunal and in relation to the demand as dealt with by it in para 8 could not be said to be applicable. Once the basic foundation was the exemption not being absolute but conditional and that being found to be baseless, the Tribunal was in no error in confirming the demand partially. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of H.R./C.R. Coils is the same. Respectfully we reproduce the ratio which is in Para No.9 and 10. 9. We have seen from the facts of this case where as per Circular dated 7-9-2001, the activity of slitting of HR/CR coils into strip was amounted to manufacture. It is admitted fact that the said Circular was withdrawn on 2-3-2005. Thereafter, the appellants sought clarification through various letters to the department to clarify whether the composite activity of de-coiling of HR/CR coils, cutting and slitting into specific sizes and thereafter pickling and oiling amounting to manufacture or not. That was clarified only on 24-6-2010. In the case of Resistance Alloys (supra) and P.V. Sanghvi (supra), wherein it was held that process of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er cover of Central Excise invoices. As in this case, the activity of the appellants does not amount to manufacture, therefore, these inputs are cleared as such. In that event, as per Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the appellants are required to pay duty equal to the credit taken thereon and the appellants have paid duty more than the credit availed. 7.2 We also find that this Bench in the case of F oam Techniques Mfg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (wherein one of us, M.V. Ravindran was a Member) following the judgement of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra) held that once the assessee considered the activity as amounting to manufacture and discharges the duty liability, the question of availing CENVAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
