Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai - III

2015 (7) TMI 1121 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Cenvat credit - Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - stock transfer from Ghaziabad to Hosur - piston and piston rings are repacked and re-labelled at Hosur with part number and supplied to the customers - period involved is from October 2007 to February 2009 - Held that:- there is no dispute on the fact that the activity of repacking and relabelling amounts to manufacture as per the definition given under section 2(f)(iii) read with Note 6 of Chapter XVII. It is found that the Department has a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

igher value and the Department accepted the payment of duty on the final products. There is no justification to deny the credit on the goods used while accepting the duty on the final products. Having accepted the duty on the final products as manufactured, it is not open to the Department to deny the credit on the inputs that the final products were not manufactured. Further, the Department has also accepted the adjudication orders dated 30.12.2010 and 30.3.2012. Therefore, the appellants are e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under Chapter Sub Heading 8409 9114 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for automobiles at the appellants factory at Ghaziabad and cleared on payment of duty on stock transfer basis to the appellants unit at Hosur. The piston and piston rings are repacked and re-labelled with part number and supplied to the customers like TVS Motors and Ashok Leyland on just in time basis on payment of duty. The adjudicating authority disallowed the CENVAT credit of ₹ 2,05,36,106 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thus the inputs used for such activities are eligible for CENVAT credit. The learned counsel further submits that Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 deems the activity of packing/ repacking or labelling/relabelling as a process of manufacture if it renders the product marketable to the customer. The appellant-assessee upon receipt of goods from their Ghaziabad factory, unpacks it and packs it according to the requirement of the bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

He further submits that the packages received from the Ghaziabad unit are not complete until they are specifically packed and labeled as per the requirements of the customers. In the automobile industry, part number is an important identification and essential of labeling. He further submits that the repacking and relabeling done by the appellant amounts to manufacture under section 2(f)(iii) read with Note 6 of Chapter XVII. The learned counsel further submits that for the subsequent periods i. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ss Vs. CCE - 2006 (202) ELT 389 (SC) (c) CCE Vs. Tikitar Industries - 2012 (277) ELT 149 (SC) 3. The learned AR for Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that the activities carried out by the appellant did not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that CENVAT credit availed at Hosur factory is not correct as the goods procured from the Ghaziabad factory were already marketable and the activitie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing and relabelling amounts to manufacture as per the definition given under section 2(f)(iii) read with Note 6 of Chapter XVII. We also find that the Department has already accepted this issue in favour of the assessee vide Order No. 38/2010 dated 30.12.2010 and Order No. 21/2012 dated 30.3.2012 for the subsequent period (March 2009 to December 2009 and from Jan. 2010 to June 2010). The relevant portion of the order dated 30.3.2012 is reproduced as under:- 11. It is also seen from the records t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version