TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in the month of May, 2001 in respect of the defective CPTs received from their customers and hence, the department cannot allege suppression of facts saying that the appellant had not disclosed that they were taking Cenvat credit on the inputs used in re-making of the goods - pre-deposit waived - stay application is allowed. - E/3918/2010-SM(BR) - 847/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 16-11-2011 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Panda, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellant manufactures Colour Picture Tubes (CPT) in their factory at Malanpur Distt. They availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of pic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act along with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and besides this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the order of the original adjudicating authority was upheld. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal along with stay application have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded, that as early as in May, 2001 vide their letter dated 23-5-2006, they had intimated the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emphasizing that the process undertaken by the appellant in respect of the defective CPTs does not amount to manufacture, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgments of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Meerut v. Samtel Colour Ltd. reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 288 (Tribunal-Delhi) (para-8) of the judgement, wherein it has been held that the new CPTs made by dismantling the defective CPTs received from the customers for repairs by using the salvaged parts of defective CPTs and new parts does not amount to manufacture, that the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Hotline C.P.T. Ltd. v. C.C., Indore reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 371 (Tribunal-Delhi), that extended period under Section 11A(1) proviso has been correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no provisions in Rule 16 that Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the process of repairing/refining would not be available. Moreover, in two judgements of the Tribunal - Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-III (supra) and C.C.E., Ahmedabad v. Tudor (I) Ltd. (supra), wherein the process of the type undertaken by the appellant has been held to be manufacture. Besides this, I also find that the appellant had disclosed the process undertaken by them as early as in the month of May, 2001 in respect of the defective CPTs received from their customers and hence, the department cannot allege suppression of facts saying that the appellant had not disclosed that they were taking Cenvat credit on the inputs used in re-making of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
