2013 (3) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri K.L. Goyal, Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appeal is being taken up for regular hearing in view of the request made by the Revenue. 3. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby a demand of Cenvat credit of ₹ 3,16,05,5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice was issued on 19-4-2010 denying credit on the ground that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. 5. The contention is that the appellant had paid more duty than the credit denied. Part of the duty paid is from PLA. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Surat-III v. Creative Enterprises reported in 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e demand raised by the Revenue, the appellant started paying duty and also started availing credit of duty paid on the inputs. Now the Revenue has changed its opinion and demand is confirmed after denying credit on the ground that credit of duty paid on inputs on the ground that the activity of cutting and slitting of jumbo rolls does not amount to manufacture. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat Hig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X