TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion - Held that:- Appellant has taken registration in 2006 by declaring their activity to the department and they were granted the registration. They are regularly filing their Central Excise Returns showing availment of Cenvat credit on capital goods, inputs and input services. They are also showing the fact that they are paying duty by utilising the Cenvat credit as well as through PLA on the finished product as well as the scrap arising during the course of manufacture. Therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Accordingly, on limitation the appellants are having a good case. Further, we find that for the period which is within limitation, the appellant has discharged duty through PLA also as well as by availing the Cenvat credit, which means they have paid more duty than the Cenvat credit availed. In these circumstances, relying on the decision of Ajinkya Ent. (2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), we hold that appellants are not liable to pay duty, as the duty paid by them on the finished goods shall be treated as reversal of the Cenvat credit during the said period. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/884/12-Mum, Appeal No.E/85783/14-Mum - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. The show-cause notice dated 02.08.2013 was also adjudicated by denying the Cenvat credit on capital goods, inputs and input service along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from these orders, appellants are before us. 4. Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate, ld. counsel for appellant appeared and submits that the appellant took registration in 2006 and declared what activity they are going to undertake and they are doing the same activity, the registration was granted to them as a manufacturer. Therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against them. He further submits that the allegation in the show-cause notice that the activity does not amount to manufacture is also not sustainable in the light of the registration granted to their Gurgaon division and there also a show-cause notice was issued holding that the activity undertake by the appellant does not amount to manufacture but in adjudication it was held that their activity amounts to manufacture and the said order has been accepted by the appellant and no appeal has been filed. He further submits that in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. vide Order no. 15/SSS/CCE/2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture namely: 1) Printo India Graphics (P) Ltd. 2012 (275) ELT 592 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2012 (282) ELT A 46 Osnar Chemicals P. Ltd. 2012 (276) ELT 162 (SC) Posco India Delhi Steel Processing Centre P. Ltd. 2014 (299) ELT 263 =) Faridabad Iron Steel Traders Association 2004 (178) ELT 1099 affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2005 (181) ELT 168 (SC), and 5) S. R. Tissues P. Ltd. 2005 (186) ELT 385 (SC) PSL Corrosion Control Ltd. 2003 (151) ELT 439. 9. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 10. In this case, the issue before us is that whether the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture or not. 11. As discussed above, the appellants are not merely undertaking the activity of cutting and slitting of coils, but they are doing the activity of putting of layer of plastic for improving drawability of material, and applying inter-leaving paper for protection of the material so as to be fit for end use application. 12. Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act 1944 deals with the definition of manufacture . Therefore, we have to see what is the correct definition of manufacture under Section 2(f) which is repro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... narily understood. This inclusion is in addition to the normal meaning and context of the expression 'manufacture'. The said expression has been the subject matter of several decisions of this Court to which a brief reference is necessary to bring out the principles enunciated therein. In Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills [1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 199) = 1963 Suppl (1) S.C.R. 586] the revenue wanted to levy a duty upon 'refined oil' which was obtained by the respondent-manufacturer at an intermediate stage of production of vanaspati. The respondent cleansed the oil purchased by him by applying certain processes and thus obtained 'refined oil'. But the respondent did not apply the process of deodorisation before hydrogenating the refined oil. The case of the Revenue was that even non-deodorised refined groundnut/til oil is 'refined oil' as known to the consumers and the commercial community. The respondent's case, however, was that the 'refined oil' as known to the consumers and the commercial community is necessarily the deodorised refined oil. After referring to the material produced by both the parties, this Court upheld the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... implification of both and tends to blur their interdependence in cases such as the present one (Ujagar Prints). It would also be not right, as pointed out in Ujagar Prints to try to restrict the sweep of the definition with reference to Entry 84 List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Since the constitutionality of the said definition has been repeatedly upheld with reference to both Entries 84 and 97 of List-I (Empire Industries and Ujagar Prints), the definition must be understood in terms it is couched. It should also be remembered that the question whether a particular process does or does not amount to 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f) is always a question of fact to be determined in the facts of a given case applying the principles enunciated by this Court. One of the main tests evolved by this Court is whether on account of the processes employed or applied by the assessee, the commodity so obtained is no longer regarded as the original commodity but is, instead, recognised as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a result of the processes (Ujagar Prints). The said decision also supports the observation made by us hereinabove. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in 2006 by declaring their activity to the department and they were granted the registration. They are regularly filing their Central Excise Returns showing availment of Cenvat credit on capital goods, inputs and input services. They are also showing the fact that they are paying duty by utilising the Cenvat credit as well as through PLA on the finished product as well as the scrap arising during the course of manufacture. Therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Accordingly, on limitation the appellants are having a good case. Further, we find that for the period which is within limitation, the appellant has discharged duty through PLA also as well as by availing the Cenvat credit, which means they have paid more duty than the Cenvat credit availed. In these circumstances, relying on the decision of Ajinkya Ent. (supra), we hold that appellants are not liable to pay duty, as the duty paid by them on the finished goods shall be treated as reversal of the Cenvat credit during the said period. 19. With these observations, the appellant succeeds on merits as well as limitation. Accordingly, appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders. (Dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
