Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (8) TMI 1465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... finished goods than whatever CENVAT Credit they have taken on the goods received from their vendors. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bunty Foods India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Thane [ 2017 (10) TMI 204 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] has held ' In the facts of the present case, the appellants have brought the duty paid goods from various vendors and the same were repacked as per the requirements of export and goods were exported, even though the activity was not amount to manufacture, they have discharged excise duty. Therefore, in our view, the appellants have complied with the provisions of Rule 16(1) and (2).' In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant has reversed the entire CENVAT Credit and also paid further Rs. 7,58,271/- unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd reprocess and pack the same and clear the goods as per the Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2002. They made their request for such a facility on 17.12.2009. After this, they started following this procedure. Show Cause Notice was issued on 9th July 2013 on the ground that the appellants were not eligible to take CENVAT Credit for the goods received from other manufacturers since the goods are already the finished goods of the appellant. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and hence they would not be eligible for the CENVAT Credit paid by the vendors. After due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. 2. Being aggrieved, the apparent is before the Tribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... shed goods and Excise Duty was being paid on them. But for the same goods, when they had taken the CENVAT Credit, the Department has taken the objection and issued and confirmed the present demand. He submits that the issue is no more res integra. The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad versus Tapsheel Enterprises has held that if the duty paid on removal is higher than the goods which have been bought, then Cenvat under Rule 16 would be eligible. He also relies on the case law of Bunty Foods India Pvt. Ltd. versus CCE Thane-2018-359 ELT-267 Tri-Mumbai. In this case, it has been held that even if the activity does not amount to manufacture, so long as the Excise Duty has been discharged thereon, the under provisions of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hich can be taken as amounting to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Mere quality control check and packing would not amount to manufacture. Therefore, he justifies the confirmed demand. 4. Heard both sides perused the appeal papers and other documents placed before us. We find from the statement submitted by the appellant at page 4 of their appeal paper book that for the entire period the appellant has purchased the Ferro Silicon on which Excise Duty of Rs. 1,63,96,895/- has been paid by the various vendors on which CENVAT Credit was taken by the appellant. For this quantity of Ferro Silicon sold by the appellant to SAIL they have discharged Excise Duty to the extent of Rs. 1,71,55,166/- While discharging thi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... remade, refined, reconditioned or similar process. We do not agree with this contention for the reason that firstly in the subrule (1) of Rule 16, it is provided that not only for the process of remade, refined, reconditioned but the duty paid goods can be brought into the factory for any other reason. In the facts of the present case, the appellants have brought the duty paid goods from various vendors and the same were repacked as per the requirements of export and goods were exported, even though the activity was not amount to manufacture, they have discharged excise duty. Therefore, in our view, the appellants have complied with the provisions of Rule 16(1) and (2). 5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant has re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates