Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (7) TMI 484

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. Credit need not be reversed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Abhishek Jaju, Advocate for the appellant. Shri P R Gupta, Authorized Representative for the respondent. Anil Choudhary: The issue in this appeal is, under the facts appellant is manufacturer of AC pressure pipes and couplers falling under heading No. 68114090 of 1st Schedule to CETA, whether they are required to reverse the input credit taken on purchase of finished/semifinished AC pressure pipes, which they have cleared on payment of duty. 2. The b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant have procured finished AC pressure pipes in the garb of semi-finished AC pressure pipes and have cleared the same as such on payment of output tax. It appeared to revenue that such activity of procuring finished/semifinished AC pressure pipes and clearing the same after the process of inspection and testing does not amount to manufacture as defined in Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act. It further appeared to revenue that semi finished AC pressure pipes and couplers are neither transportable nor marketable and as such the appellant's claim that they procured the said goods in semifinished condition does not stand to reason. The statement of Authorised Signatory Mr. Kishanlal Yadav was recorded who stated that the finishing proces .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emanded and recovered under Rule 14 read with proviso to section 11(a)(1) of Central Excise act, with further proposal to impose penalty relating to the period 20 th June 2006 to 7th July 2009. 4. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand confirmed for ₹ 21,14,240/- including cess along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Act. Further interest was also demanded under rule 14 of CCR 2004. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order was pleased to reject the appeal and uphold the adjudication order. 6. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. The learned counsel urges that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates