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 1492 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - whether the activity of metalizing undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture or not? - Held that: - After metallization process the polypropylene film is no longer a film with insulting properties but a metalized film with conducting properties ready to be used in capacitors. Therefore, the raw material has been transformed into something new i.e. Electronic Capacitor Grade Aluminium Metalized Dielectric Plastic Film which can be used for manufacturing electronic capacitors and the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology clarified that there is a great deal of difference between the plastic film and the metalized film manufactured by the assessee. Benefit of N/N. 25/99-Cus dated 28.2.1999 and N/N. 25/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 - Held that: - There is great deal of difference between description of imported goods and description of finished goods. If the description of imported goods and description of finished goods are same, then the notifications become redundant , it is not intention of the legislation - From the tenor of the notification, it is clear that inputs procured by the assessee are altogether different from the goods manufactured by the assessee. Refund claim of Cenvat credit - denial on the ground that the activity undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture - Held that: - in the present case, the activity undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacturer, therefore, the assessee is entitled to refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which remains unutilized in the Cenvat credit account on export of goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|