9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49,752/- along with interest thereon under the provisions of the Central Excise Act read with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also imposed an equivalent amount of penalty under the various provisions against the appellant M/s Rochem Separations Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had imported membrane/disc for water filter system and after importation they had undertaken certain treatment/processes and repacked the same after adding some features and sold the same as membrane. The appellant was under the bona fide belief that the activity undertaken by them amounted to manufacture and, therefore, they discharged excise duty liability on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise duty paid by them, which was higher than the amount of credit availed and confirmation of duty demand. In such a situation, even if the processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture, the liability to reverse credit would not arise at all. 3. Learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that as per the show-cause notice, the credit taken by them in respect of SAD is more than the amount of excise duty liability discharged by them and thus excess credit was being used for payment of duty. Accordingly, he pleads for upholding the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 4.1 We are of the view that the appeal its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has paid more excise duty, then the question of reversal of credit would not arise in the light of the various decisions in the case of Creative Enterprises, Ajinkya Enterprises and Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (cited supra). 4.4 As regards the question, whether the activity undertaken amounts to manufacture, the appellant imported the membranes and they have claimed that they have undertaken certain processes. Prima facie, the activity does not amount to manufacture as no new product has emerged with a distinct name, character and use. Further the processes undertaken have not been defined as manufacture under the law. However, this issue is kept open and the appellant can lead evidence before the adjudicating authority in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
