TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant as to whether it would amount to manufacture or not under Rule 16 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – the decisions relied upon by both the sides would be looked into at the time of appeal hearing in detail - the learned advocate produced a chart which shows that there is some chassis were exported and cleared under Central Excise Notification 108/95 and also they availed cenvat credit fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat credit under Rule 16 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They cleared some chassis on payment of duty at the rate applicable and on the value as determined under Section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and claimed that manufacturing activity was undertaken by them under Rule 16 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It has been alleged that the process undertaken by them does not amount to manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs CCE Pune-2011 (272) ELT 84 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it has been held that even if there is no manufacturing activity, the assessee can clear the repaired goods on the duty determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. He also submits that there is no machinery provision for demand of amount equivalent to CENVAT credit under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture. He strongly contested the chart produced by learned counsel which would show that the goods cleared for export, under Central Excise Notification No.108/95 input credit etc. would not cover the instant demand. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that there is factual dispute on the process undertaken by the applicant as to whether it would amount to manufacture or not under Rule 16 (2) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
