9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eevi C.S. Revenue has filed the appeal challenging the impugned order. 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The respondents, M/s.Gupta Tobacco Co. was supplied goods by M/s.Packotech Industries who were engaged in manufacture of flexible laminated metalized film and flexible laminated pouches. In the course of audit of M/s.Packotech Industries, it was observed that the process of laminaton ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rocess which does not amount to manufacture. That therefore the respondents had wrongly availed Cenvat Credit. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the supply/receipt of raw materials by the respondents. There is no dispute with regard to the payment of duty upon them. That the conditions for availing Cenvat Credit being satisfied by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices. In the circumstances, the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on the input as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). The question whether the input had arisen out of a process of manufacture is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether the input was duty-paid. 7. In para 6 and 7 of the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as follows: "6. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee would be entitled to Modvat credit and whole exercise would be revenue neutral. 7. I also rely upon the Hon'ble Tribunal judgment in the case of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2012 (285) ELT 76 (Tri.Del.) where the input used in final products emerging from process not amounting to manufacture but cleared on payment of duty, Department accepted excise duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
