9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, printing cannot be incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product as is held in the case of BRAKES INDIA LTD. VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 1997 (3) TMI 120 - SUPREME COURT ] where the Hon ble Supreme Court clearly held that 'When adopting a particular process, if a transformation takes place, which makes the product have a character and use of its own, which it did not bear earlier, then the process would amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) irrespective of the fact whether there has been a single process or have been several processes.' Therefore, availing cenvat credit on the jumbo bags as inputs which have been received for the purpose of printing is irregular in as much ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bo bags remained as jumbo bags and the process of printing and repacking did not amount to manufacture, the question of availing credit on the jumbo bags received by them was irregular, hence show-cause notice was issued and the cenvat credit amount of Rs.12,71,720/- was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed and also extended period was invoked on the ground that the appellant had not declared that the jumbo bags were both inputs for the purpose of availing credit and also cleared them as final products. 2. The learned Chartered Accountant (CA) submits that the activity of printing and repacking of jumbo bags is a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of product under section 2(f)(i) of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppression as held by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Apex Electrical Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India: 1992 (61) ELT 413 (Guj.). The only allegation by the Revenue is that the jumbo bags were recorded as inputs in the stock register and the fact that these goods are also the final products was not declared to the Department. The appellants believed that the activity amounted to manufacture and therefore, there is no need to intimate the same and that this cannot be the basis to demand duty on the ground of suppression. 3. The Authorised Representative reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) submitted that the jumbo bags are in fact the final products and the process undertaken by the appellant cannot be consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product as is held in the case of Brakes India Ltd. vs. Superintendent of Central Excise: 1998 (101) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) where the Hon ble Supreme Court clearly held that: If by a process, a change is effected in a product, which was not there previously, and which change facilitates the utility of the product for which it is meant, then the process is not a simple process, but a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. It will not always be safe solely to go by a test as to whether the commodity after the change takes in a new name, though in stated circumstances, it may be useful to resort to it. This may prove deceptive sometimes for it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny notice after the first audit there cannot be any suppression. I agree with the contention of the appellant that the revenue was aware of the irregular of availment of credit in the month of August 2008 itself. Having not issued show-cause notice during the first audit they cannot allege suppression at the time of second audit. In the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur dated on 22-1-2013 the Hon ble Supreme Court held as follows: 25. Moreover, this Court, through a catena of decisions, has held that the proviso to Section 28 of the Act finds application only when specific and explicit averments challenging the fides of the conduct of the assessee are made in the show cause notice, a requirement th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the various omissions or commissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to five years. That unless the assessee is put to notice the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the Department. It was held : ...There is considerable force in this contention. If the department proposes to invoke the proviso to Section 11-A(1), the show-cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various commissions or omissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to 5 years. Unless the assessee is put to notice, the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the department. The defaults enumerated in the proviso to the said sub-section are more than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
