9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of these goods. The contention as raised by the Revenue that the activities undertaken by the appellant do not amount to manufacture, but still undisputedly the appellant has paid the duty in respect of the finished goods. Having accepted the payment of duty, Revenue could not have denied the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant. Appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 1606 of 2012 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/86163/2022 - Dated:- 9-12-2022 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Ms. Payal Nahar, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Amrendra Kumar Jha, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling under Chapter 28 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also taking Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs received by them for manufacture of finished goods treating repacking and relabeling activity undertaken by them as manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.2 On scrutiny of records and enquiry, it was found that the appellant was not having any plant, machinery or industrial power connection. As no manufacturing activity was undertaken by them, their premises was simply a godown used for dispatch of the finished goods. The only activity that was being undertaken in the said godown is repacking and relabeling of excisable goods and dispatch thereof. These activities undertaken in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged by the appellant as Cenvat credit availed. The demand made was the actual duty paid by them on the dispatches made by them of the finished products and the total credit taken by them on the inputs received was Rs.12,64,661/-. The duty paid should be treated as reversal of credit and the demand raised is not maintainable in view of the decisions as follows:- Ajinkya Enterprises [2013 (288) ELT 247 (T)] affirmed by Hon ble Bombay High Court reported at 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.)] Creative Enterprises [2009 (235) ELT 785 (Guj.)] affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court reported at 2009 (243) ELT A120 (SC)] Vishal Precision Steel Tubes and Strips Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1287-Karnataka High Court] Tristar Enterprises [2019 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86) as amounting to [manufacture; or] [(iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer.] and the word manufacturer shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account;] Taking in to consideration the ingredients of the Section 2(f) supra, it is seen that, no n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acking or repacking of bulk packing into retail packs within the extended meaning of manufacture as contained in Chapter Note 3 in Chapters 18 and 19 of the Act. In the case of Chemerown Export Ltd., v/s. CCE, Mumbai-III- 2010(256) ELT.108(Tri.-Mum.), it was also held that- 6. We find that the appellant's case is squarely covered by the substantial decisions referred by the learned Advocate and the Apex Court on the Identical issue has taken view that the activity taken over by the appellants does not amount to manufacture. We are also in agreement with arguments advanced by the ld Counsel. Following the same ratio, we also hold that the activity in the facts and circumstances of the case does not amount to manufacture in bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court has in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises [2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.)] held as follows:- 10 . Apart from the above, in the present case, the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from the factory of the assessee on payment of duty has neither been reversed nor it is held that the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid at the time of clearing the decoiled HR/CR coils. In these circumstances, the CESTAT following its decision in the case of Ashok Enterprises - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 586 (T), Super Forgings - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 559 (T), S.A.I.L. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 520 (T) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 640 (Tribunal), M.P. Telelinks Limited - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 167 (T) and a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE v. Creative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
