9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re engaged in the warehousing and selling of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) falling under Chapter Heading 27 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In addition to the warehousing, they are also engaged in import of light hydrocarbons viz., Propane and Butane through New Mangalore Port, which were blended using the static mixer installed in the New Mangalore Port Trust Area (NMPT) resulting into LPG which was pumped to appellant's warehouse [Mangalore LPG Import Facility (MLIF). It was alleged that they manufactured LPG falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 2711 1900 from the imported propane and butane at the Port without Registration as manufacturer and cleared on payment of duty from the warehouse by wrongly availing CENVAT credit of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication for amending Central Excise Registration certificate to include manufacture of goods also in their warehousing Registration certificate. 3.1 He has submitted that the appellant through letter dated 26.11.2014 explained the entire activity undertaken by them and sought single registration for manufacture involving the premises of Coastal Terminal at NMPT and MLIF and communications were exchanged with the department. 3.2 He has further submitted that the learned Commissioner in the impugned order mentioned that the warehouse registration has been subsequently amended to include manufacturing of excisable goods at MLIF. 3.3 He has submitted that the activity of manufacture is undertaken at the MLIF location and not at the NMPT a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G which amounts to recovery of tax twice on the same goods, which is contrary to settled principles of law. Further, he submits that once the department has accepted the duty paid on the LPG, denial of CENVAT credit on the inputs viz., Propane and Butane is incorrect in view of the principle of law settled by the Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Pune-III vs. Ajinkya Enterprises: 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.) followed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes & Strips Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 (349) ELT 686 (Kar.). Further, he has submitted that imposition of penalty and interest is not sustainable when the demand itself is bad in law. 4. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clude as manufacturer with effect from 26.11.2014. 7. We find that merely on the ground that the appellants are not possessing manufacturer registration at the time of receipt of the goods in their premises would not disentitle them in availing CENVAT credit in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. (supra) case, the Hon'ble High Court had observed as follows: "7. Insofar as requirement of registration with the department as a condition precedent for claiming Cenvat credit is concerned, learned counsel appearing for both parties were unable to point out any provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules which impose such restriction. In the absence of a statutory provision w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
