9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant Ms K Komathi, Authorized Representative for the Respondent Per: C J Mathew This appeal of M/s Goderj Consumer Products Ltd lies against the confirmation of demand, under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, of Rs 3,20,73,442/-, that was allegedly wrongly availed as CENVAT credit between 15th December 2007 and 31st January 2009, along with interest thereon under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t their factory which, after testing, re-packing, palletization and shrink-wrapping, were cleared on payment of duty. Proceedings were initiated for recovery of credit on the ground that the activities undertaken on the 'combi pack' by the appellant did not amount to manufacture. 2. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, in a catena of decisions, it has been held that the acceptance of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une [2007 (218) ELT 142 (Tri.- Mumbai)] has also held the entire exercise to be revenue neutral in view of the availability of the alternative recourse to rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Learned Authorised Representative contests these assertions and points out that the eligibility to CENVAT credit under rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is available only for inputs/input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be canvassed.' In view of the said decision, which relies upon the earlier decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-III v. Creative Enterprises [2009 (235) ELT 785 (Guj.)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III v. Ajinkya Enterprises [2013 (294) ELT 302 (Bom)], the impugned order is not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
