9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inted/laminated/ metalized flexible plastic film in roll form. They were availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs and making use of such Cenvat Credit for paying central excise duty on their finished products. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE, New Delhi, 2004 (165) ELT 129 (SC), has held that, the activity of laminating/metalizing of duty paid film does not amount to manufacture. The Revenue was of the view that, since the finished products manufactured by the assessee- Appellants was not liable to central excise duty, the assessee- Appellants had improperly availed the Cenvat Credit during the disputed period. Accordingly, after issuance of show cause notice, both the authorities below held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see-Appellants who have paid excise duty on metalized plastic films. As such the Notification granted immunity only upto 02nd February, 2004 and since the disputed period is beyond this date, the assessee-Appellants were not justified in taking and utilizing the Cenvat Credit. Hence, the same is required to be reversed. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that the activity of laminating and metalizing the duty paid film has been held to be an activity which does not amount to manufacture. After the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee-Appellants were not required to pay the duty on the finished products. However, during the disputed period the assessee-Appellants have paid duty by availing the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as eligibility to Modvat credit. It there was no manufacture, there could be no payment of duty also. There is no dispute that the appellants had paid a higher amount of duty on the goods than the credit taken. If the credit taken was not eligible, what was required was only to adjust the duty paid against that credit." 7. In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case in light of concurrent findings of fact recorded after appreciating the evidence on record by both Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises out of impugned order of Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." We further note that the above decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
