9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, CENVAT credit is available and there is no question of reversal of CENVAT credit - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/493/2009, CO-103/2010 - FO/76449/2018 - Dated:- 19-7-2018 - SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, Member (Judicial) and SHRI Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri H.S.Abedin, AC(AR) for the Appellant (s) Shri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary The respondent assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Stainless Steel House Assemble, S.S.Bellow classifiable under Chapter 83 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent assessee took cenvat credit on M.S. Round, G.I Steel Tubes P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as it was received in the factory of the assessee. He further submits that Rule 16(1) and 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are not applicable in the instant case. 3. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent assessee reiterates the order of the Adjudicating Authority and submits that there is no infirmity in the adjudication order and accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue may be dismissed. He relied on various decisions in support of his submissions. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the issue is no more resintegra in view of the various decisions of the Hon ble High Courts; (a) Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Surat-III vs. Creative Enterprises [2009(235) E.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty on the final product, there 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 said 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 [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... September, 2001, the withdrawal of the said Circular 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 Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
