9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has not properly examined the overall activity of the appellant, process and whether a different goods emerged after carrying out the said activity. Therefore, without proper examination of the process and the emergence of distinct commodity the demand of Excise duty considering the activities as manufacture cannot be sustainable. Therefore, on the aspects of manufacture the matter needs to be re-examined by adjudicating authority. CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the invoices on which the Cenvat credit was claimed bear endorsement - HELD THAT:- In many cases it has been decided that merely because the invoices are endorsed Cenvat credit cannot be denied, when the duty payment and receipt of raw material and use in the manufacture is established. These aspects are not under dispute in the present case except the charge that the invoices are endorsed. Therefore, the appellant are entitled for the Cenvat credit subject to verification of the document - the denial of Cenvat credit merely on the ground that the invoices are endorsed is not sustainable. Cum duty benefit - adjudicating authority has denied this benefit on the ground that the appellant had a mala fide intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing through different samples. Process in brief which is not in dispute is that trading concerns purchase duplex paper board from the authorized dealers of paper board manufacturers. These paper boards are then sent to offset printers for offset printing with customers design, name and logo. These paper boards are first cut to size as per requirement to set in offset printing machine. After receipt of printed paper board, the Appellants either themselves or through job workers do various further process such as process of lamination of BOPP films or PVC films as the case may be. The different processes such as UV treatment, embossing etc. are also done as per the need of the customer. Thereafter, process of punching and creasing is done on such laminated paper board. 1.3. According to the department, the Appellants are clearing three different sheets to the customers in set which according to them is top and bottom of box and also tray which is kept inside the box to give it strength. Though invoices/challans refer the products in question as Sheet only, case of the department is that these are not sheets but Boxes cleared in sheet form for ease of transportation and same can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance on the following judgments:- Grasim Industries Vs. UOI 2011 (273) ELT 10 (SC) Maruti Suzuki Vs. CCE 2015 (318) ELT 353 (SC) Metlex Vs. CCE 2004 (165) ELT 129 (SC) Shyam Oil Cakes Vs. CCE 2004 (174) ELT 145 (SC) Dunlop India Vs. UOI 1983 (13) ELT 1566 (SC) Reliance Textile Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI 1993 (63) ELT 67 (Bom.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE 1987 (27) ELT 482 (T) CCE, New Delhi v. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) CCE Vs. Tarpaulin International 2010 (256) ELT 481 (S.C) Anil Dang v. Commissioner 2007 (213) E.L.T. 29 (Tribunal-LB) Printo India Graphics (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE 2012 (275) ELT 592 (T) Affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (282) ELT A46(S.C) Win Enterprises Vs. CCE 2013-TIOL-1777-CESTAT-MAD-LB CCE Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd. 2000 (116) ELT 465 (T) Srichakra Tyres Ltd. Vs. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 361 (T) Affirmed by the Supreme Court of India 2002 (142) ELT A279 (S.C) CCE Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2002 (141) ELT 3 (S.C) Formica Division Vs. CCE 1995 (77) ELT 511 (S.C) Darshan Industries Vs. UOI 2014 (307) ELT 36 (Guj) Uni Cast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CСЕ 2016 (331) ELT 369 (T) Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs. CCE 1995 (75) ELT 721 (S.C) Pahwa Chemica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and presumption and without adjudicating on above aspect is perverse and not tenable. Since, the root cause of this case is demand of Excuse duty assuming that the activity under taken by the appellant are manufacture, however, the adjudicating authority has not properly examined the overall activity of the appellant, process and whether a different goods emerged after carrying out the said activity. Therefore, without proper examination of the process and the emergence of distinct commodity the demand of Excise duty considering the activities as manufacture cannot be sustainable. Therefore, on the aspects of manufacture the matter needs to be re-examined by adjudicating authority. 4.2 As regard the issue of Cenvat credit, we find that the adjudicating authority has denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices on which the Cenvat credit was claimed bear endorsement. We find that in many cases it has been decided that merely because the invoices are endorsed Cenvat credit cannot be denied, when the duty payment and receipt of raw material and use in the manufacture is established. In our view these aspects are not under dispute in the present case except the charge that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
