TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. - CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.29 OF 2012 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2012 - J.P. Devadhar R.Y. Ganoo, JJ. Mr.A S Rao for the appellant. Mr.Shrikant Acharya, partner of respondent present in person. ORAL JUDGMENT : (per J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the CENVAT credit of duty paid on HR / CR coils availed and utilized by the assessee for paying duty on decoiled HR / CR coils need not be reversed, is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The dispute in the present case relates to the period from 2nd March 2005 to 31st December 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT by the impugned order dated 23rd June 2011 allowed the appeal and held that the assessee is not required to reverse the credit of duty paid on HR / CR coils. Challenging the aforesaid order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 7. According to the Revenue once a Circular was issued by the CBEC on 2nd March 2005 thereby withdrawing the earlier Circular dated 7th September 2001, it was clear that the activity of decoiling the HR / CR sheets did not constitute manufacture and, therefore, the assessee could not have taken credit of duty paid on HR / CR coils. It is further argued that if the process of decoiling the HR / CR coils did not constitute manufacture, then, obviously no duty was payable on clearance of the decoiled HR / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7th September 2001 had only held that the activity of cutting / slitting of HR / CR coils in to sheets or strips constitutes manufacture. Admittedly, the assessee had carried on additional activities such as pickling and oiling on the decoiled HR / CR coils, which is a complex technical process involving huge investment in plant and machinery. Since these additional activities were not considered by the Board in its Circular dated 7th September 2001, the withdrawal of the said Circular cannot be a ground to hold that the activity carried on by the assessee did not constitute manufacturing activity. It is only on 24th June 2010, the Board has issued a Circular to the effect that the process of pickling does not amount to manufacture. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
