9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CENVAT credit is admissible if such inputs are cleared on payment of duty which would amount to reversal of credit availed. Reliance can be placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EX. CUS., SURAT-III VERSUS CREATIVE ENTERPRISES [ 2008 (7) TMI 311 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] which was upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court in COMMISSIONER VERSUS CREATIVE ENTERPRISES [ 2009 (7) TMI 1206 - SC ORDER ] wherein it was held that once duty on final products has been accepted by the Department in the case, CENVAT credit cannot be denied even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore is set aside - appeal allowed. - MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then laminated with Metallised/ Polyethylene film by applying adhesive. The various inputs used in the process of which the CENVAT credit has been availed by the appellant. The anti-Evasion Branch recorded the statements of Shri Pinak Sarkar, Production Manager and Shri Rajesh Goyal, Director of the Company. Thereafter, on the basis of the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, New Delhi reported at 2004 (165) ELT 129 (SC) in which it was held that laminating/ metallising of duty paid film does not amount to manufacture as the product is a film to start with and remains a film after lamination or metallization and no new and distinct products comes into existence. Thereafter, two show-cause notices da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not duty, that it is on this basis CENVAT credit demand of Rs.99,30,054/- has been made along with interest for the period from December 2000 to August 2005 vide show-cause notice dated 05.01.2006, a part of which was confirmed by the Commissioner, that the second demand raised by the show-cause notice dated 07.12.2006 for the period from November 2005 to January 2006 is for demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.9,79,983/-, while during this period as per the Department s own stand, the process did not amount to manufacture and no duty was payable, that still the Commissioner in the impugned order going beyond the scope of the show-cause notice dated 07.12.2006 has confirmed CENVAT credit demand of the same amount while the show-cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court cited supra. He further submits that this decision of the Tribunal has been consistently followed and it has been held that when the duty paid at the time of clearance which is equal to or higher than the credit availed, the same is to be treated as reversal of credit. Therefore, no further reversal of credit is required as held in the case of CCE, Surat Vs Creative Enterprises 2009 (235) ELT 785 (Guj.) which was upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (243) ELT A120 (SC) wherein it was held that once duty on final products has been accepted by the Department in the case, CENVAT credit cannot be denied even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. The appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
