TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal goods, cannot be denied on the ground that those goods and services were used for manufacture of non-dutiable goods, on which duty liability has been discharged from cenvat credit account. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/3970/2010-EX[SM] - A/56482/2016-SM[BR] - Dated:- 22-12-2016 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Dhruv, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. H.C. Saini, A.R. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Denial of cenvat credit on inputs, used in manufacture of finished goods cleared on payment of duty, on the ground that the process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, is the subject matter of present dispute. 2. Brief facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. The said show cause notice was adjudicated vide order dated 23.03.2009, confirming the cenvat demand of ₹ 28,93,838/- alongwith interest in terms of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Besides, equal amount of penalty was imposed on the appellant under Rule 15 of the said rules. In appeal against the said adjudication order, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2010, upheld the cenvat demand, but set aside the penalty, imposed in the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal is before the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. It is an admitted fact on record that the Registration Certificate surrendered by the appellant on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3 reported in 2013 (288) ELT 247 (Tri.-Mumbai) has held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the Department, cenvat credit availed need not be reversed, even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. Appeal by Revenue against the said decision of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court, reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 (Bombay). Further the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-III vs. Creative Enterprises reported in 2009 (35) ELT 785 (Guj.), while upholding the views taken by the Tribunal, have held that if the activity of the respondent assessee does not amount to manufacture, there can be no question of levy of duty, and if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
