9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 43/2001-C.E., dated 26-6-2001 for use in the manufacture of export products. 2.2 The applicants procured duty paid raw materials, viz. tissue paper in the form of jumbo rolls and sheets at their factory premises and availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid on such inputs. The said jumbo rolls were cut and slit into smaller sheets of the required sizes as per their export orders, bundles prepared of such smaller sheets, folded and packed in BOPP bags, labeled and exported on payment of appropriate duty of excise by debit from the cenvat account. The exports were effected under six different ARE-1. Consequent upon the exports, the applicants filed six rebate claims before the Jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise wherein they claimed rebate of duty paid on the said final products. 2.3 In view of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE, Delhi v. SR Tissues Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) that the activity of cutting and slitting of Jumbo Rolls of Tissue Paper into smaller sheets and their packing etc. did not amount to manufacture and the finished goods could not be considered as excisable goods liable to excise duty. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cutting of tissue papers in jumbo rolls and sheets into smaller sizes amounted to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was contested issue during the material period. The department was of the view that such activity amounts to manufacture and accordingly, the applicant was granted Central Excise registration for this purpose and the duty paid thereon was also collected and retained from them, by the department. 4.3 In any case, the applicant was of the view that inasmuch as the finished goods (cut tissue papers) were to be eventually exported and the duty paid thereon was available to the applicant as rebate, applicable Central Excise duty was paid on the same, which in the department's view was leviable. 4.4 However, for the first time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decided the issue of SR Tissues Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) wherein it was laid down that cutting of jumbo rolls of tissue papers into smaller sizes, does not amount to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that by the time the applicant became aware of such decision, they had already exported the fini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of duty in ordinary course and then he is entitled to claim rebate thereon because the goods were exported out of country as payment of excise duty thereon. In either case the result is same. Re : in the case of CCE v. Simplex Pharma Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (229) E.L.T. 504 (P & H) 4.7 That as already mentioned supra, meaning of "manufacture" is much wider when it comes to the issue of rebate on export goods and the same conventional meaning given in Section 2(f) to any activity is no longer relevant. The very issue of whether cutting of jumbo rolls of papers will amount to manufacture or not is answered differently by various courts, including the Hon'ble Apex Court, as can be seen from the below : (a) Kores India Ltd. v. UOI, 2004 (174) E.L.T. 7 (S.C.) (b) CCE, Surat-II v. Sohum Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (203) E.L.T. 493 (Tri.-Mum.) (c) Nav Bharat Impex v. CCE, 2009 (236) E.L.T. 349 (Tri.-Del.) 4.8 That interestingly in the case of Nav Bharat Impex, wherein a somewhat identical issue was involved, the Hon'ble Tribunal allowed the Cenvat credit of duty paid on raw materials used to produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. From the perusal of records, Govt. observes that the applicant obtained the Central Excise registration on 19-8-2005 for manufacture of tissue paper and printing papers cut into sizes. The applicant availed cenvat facility for the raw material procured on payment of Central Excise Duty and also procured duty free raw materials under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-5-2001 for use in the manufacture of the exported goods. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 5-8-2005 in the case of CCE, Delhi v. SR Tissues Ltd. - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) that the activity of cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls of tissue paper into smaller sheets and their packing etc. did not amount to manufacture, hence the process undertaken by the applicant did not amount to the manufacture and the finished goods could not be considered as excisable goods liable to excise duty. Since no duty was payable on the finished goods, the Cenvat credit on the inputs procured by the applicant on payment of duty was not permissible as per Rule 6(1) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. Hence, the case laws referred by the applicant are not applicable. The applicant have not exported the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
