Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1310 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - demand was confirmed invoking Rule 6(3)(i) Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 on the ground that appellant’s activity of repacking and re-labeling does not amount to manufacture therefore activity amount to trading only - Rule 6(3) (i) of CCR - Held that: - it is undisputed fact that appellant even though the activity does not amount to manufacture but cleared re-packed goods on payment of duty, which is more than the amount payable under Rule 6(3)(i), once the goods have been cleared on payment of duty, Rule 6(3)(i) cannot be applied - demand under Rule 6(3)(i) is not sustainable. Refund claim - case of appellant is that once it was held by the Revenue that activity of repacking and re-labelling does not amount to manufacture, all the duty paid on such repacked goods become refundable - Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that: - Additional Commissioner while disposing of SCN proposing denial of Cenvat credit clearly held that demand is not sustainable on the ground that appellant have cleared the repacked goods on payment of duty - when the appellant have availed the Cenvat credit and paid excise duty even though the activity does not amount to manufacture, amount of excise duty paid by them cannot be refundable. The appellant’s activity of taking Cenvat credit on the duty paid goods received in the factory and re-issue of the said goods after re-packing and re-labelling on payment of duty is squarely covered under the provision of Rule 16 of CER 2002. Therefore there is no question of any refund of any amount paid while clearing re-packed goods. Appeal allowed in part.
|