TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed order, upheld the Order-in-Original dated 9-1-2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 43,50,756/- and Rs. 44,71,526/- together with interest and imposing equivalent penalties of Rs. 43,50,756/- and Rs. 44,71,526/-. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants have been manufacturing various press parts required in automobile industry and engineering industry. They have been availing Cenvat credit. For manufacture of press parts as above, the applicants have been procuring jumbo coils of Hot Rolled (HR) Steel and have been engaging themselves in the activities of de-coiling, cutting, and slitting of HR steel coils and picking and oiling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has further held as under :- Pickled and unpickled sheets mentioned in the tariff refers to manufactured pickled and unpickled sheets. These sheets are those which emerge as a result of manufacture in a continuous process in a factory starting from the processing of raw material. Mere pickling of sheet will not be classifiable in the tariff. The Central Excise Tariff Act is used for classification of manufactured goods and not the goods which have not been manufactured. Duty of Excise is on manufactured goods. If there is no manufacture there is no duty and it is irrelevant to refer to tariff in relation to such goods which are not manufactured. 5. We have examined the position. The issue involved in this case is whether the process ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment cannot approbate and reprobate. It is not disputed that the credit taken during the relevant period had been utilized for the payment of the duty only, wherever required. The applicants had not retained or misused any credit for their own benefit. The amount paid as duty was credited to the Govt. account and such payment of the duty amounted to the reversal of the credit. 8. The following case laws lay down that when the process is held to be not manufacture, then the duty paid on the final product should be treated as reversal of the ineligible credit on the inputs and the assessee cannot be called upon to pay the credit :- (i) Singh Scrap Processors Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 619 (T). (ii) Stumpp Scheule Soma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
