9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department, CENVAT credit is available and there is no question of reversal of CENVAT credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/508/12 - FO/75402/2018 - Dated:- 16-3-2018 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) And SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Dr.Samir Chakraborty, Sr.Advocate, Shri S.Santra, Chief Manager (Taxation) for the Appellant (s) Shri H.S.Abedin, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of petroleum products. The petroleum products are manufactured in the refineries of the appellant situated in various parts of the country. The present appeal relates to the Haldia refinery. In the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acks, inasmuch as the said process did not amount to manufacture of excisable goods as per section 2(f) of the Act. He vehemently argued at length and also submitted that the issue is no more res integra and cited the following decisions:- 1) CCE, JSR. V. Tata Ryerson Ltd. [2017 (355) E.L.T. 21 (Jhar.)] 2) CCE, Bangalore-V v. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes Strips Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (349) ELT 686 (Kar.)] 3) CCE Cus., Surat-III v. Creative Enterprises [2009 (235) ELT 785 (Guj.)] 4) Commissioner v. Creative Enterprises [2009 (243) ELT A 120(SC)] 5) Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad [2016 (336) ELT 81 (Tri.-Mumbai)] 3. Ld.AC(AR) for the Revenue reiterated the discussions and findings of the adjudicating authority. 4. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re would be no requirement of reversal of the said credit even if the activity undertaken by die assessee does not amount to manufacture. By following the said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant . 4. The aforesaid order shows that when the Cenvat credit is availed on the inputs stand utilized for payment of duty on the final product, there would be no requirement of reversal of the credit. Even if the activity is undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture. 5. We may usefully refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III v. Ajinkya Enterprises [ 2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 (Bom.)], wherein, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular cannot be a ground to hold that the activity carried on by the assessee did not constitute manufacturing activity. It is only on 24th June, 2010, the Board has issued a Circular to the effect that the process of pickling does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, during the relevant period, that is, during the period from 2nd March, 2005 to 31st December, 2005, it could not be said that the issue was settled and that the assessee paid duty on decoiled HR/CR coils knowing fully well that the same were not manufactured goods. If duty on decoiled HR/CR coils was paid bona fide, then availing credit of duty paid on HR/CR coils cannot be faulted . 6. The another decision of High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
