9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter 29 and 30 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed the facility of cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the audit, it was noticed that the appellant have imported goods namely, "Sulfolane Anhydrus" and taken cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was upheld, therefore, the present appeal. 2. Sh. S.J. Vyas Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue on merit has been settled against the appellant in the case of CCE Vs. M/s Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 5 (SC). He submits that he confine his argument heavily on limitation. In this regard he submits that the issue involved is of interpretation of Chapter No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, the activity of putting label on the container will amount to manufacture. 3. On the other hand, Sh. G. Jha Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the judgment of Casil Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tribunal order No. A/1581/WZB/AHD/2011 dated 26.08.2011 and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onversion from bulk pack to retail pack to render the product as manufactured goods. This issue has been settled in the case of M/s Amritlal Chemaux Ltd (Supra) wherein the identical Chapter Note has been dealt with and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the activity of re-packing/re-labelling alone does not amount to manufacture. Accordingly, the appellant's activity being only re-packing/re-lab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue was finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, when the department itself was of the view that the activity of re-packing/re-labelling alone is amount to manufacture. The same bonafide belief was entertained by the appellant which cannot be construed as malafide intention to evade the payment of duty, therefore, the demand for the extended period cannot be raised. 5. In the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
