TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we hold that the appellant have rightly paid duty by reversal of credit under the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We also hold that the show cause notice is misconceived as it ignores the CBEC Circular, wherein it has been said that galvanization of black wire does not amount to manufacture - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - E/1713/2007-[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 70991/2016 - Dated:- 13-10-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Nishant Mishra Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri Pawn Kumar Singh Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department ORDER The appellant, M/s Balaji Wires Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturer of G.I. Wire, Drawn G.I. Wire etc., is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that galvanization of Wire does not amount to manufacture and also placed reliance on the CBEC Circular No.19/19/94-CX dated 09.02.1994, clarifying in Para-3 that galvanization does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the goods did not fall in the category of exempted goods and accordingly, they were required to be reversed Cenvat at the time of clearances. Thereafter, SCN dated 27.10.2005 was issued. It appeared to Revenue, that if the explanation of the appellant that the process does not amount to manufacture, is accepted, then the goods in question cannot be treated as dutiable at all and accordingly, the appellant was not entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the inputs u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period. For the period October, 2004 to March, 2005, the amount proposed ₹ 35,91,092/-was confirmed as short paid on clearance of G.I. Wire under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004. Further, for the period March, 2005 to 19th September, 2005 Excise duty amounting to ₹ 48,47,331/- including education cess was confirmed as short paid under the provisions of Rule 6 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. And further, the amount deposited earlier was appropriated ₹ 40,00,000/-. Penalty of equal amount is also imposed along with charging of interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before this tribunal. 6. The learned counsel Mr. Nishant Mishra appearing for the appellant urged, galvanisation simpli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the commodity already in existence, will be of no commercial use but for the said process. Applying the aforementioned test to the facts in S.R. Tissues, where the activity of slitting/cutting of jumbo rolls of plain tissue paper/aluminium foil into smaller size was held, does not amount to manufacture on the principle that character and end-use did not undergo any change on account of winding, cutting/slitting and packing. It was also held that mere mention of a product in a tariff heading not necessarily implies that said product was obtained by process of manufacture. Also held that just because raw materials and finished products come under two different headings, it cannot be presumed that process of obtaining finished produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
