9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has not undergone the process of manufacturing in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal. By dissatisfied with Order-in-Appeal appellant filed appeal before CESTAT, Mumbai wherein Tribunal vide Order No.A/270-282/III/5MC/WZB/06 dated 06.02.2006 set aside the Order-in-Appeal and remanded the matter back to Original Adjudicating Authority with directions, specifically to ascertain the facts that whether the activities carried out by the appellant is manufacture or otherwise. In the second round, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No.19/2009-10 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the facts whether the activity is amount to manufacture that means whether any other activity which left to be considered which may amount to manufacture remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant cannot produce any evidence that any additional activity of manufacture had been carried out. In this position the appellant is not entitled for refund on both the count. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find that both the lower authorities denied the refund claim on two counts i.e. process carried out by the appellant is not amount to manufacture and as per the bar provided under explanation (3) of para 6 of Notification No.6/2002-CE(NT) deemed credit is not available to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said final product deemed credit of input is admissible. Therefore the input which was used by the principal for manufacture of processed fabrics, the appellant is entitled for the deemed credit, it is also admitted fact that the final goods was cleared for export by the appellant. The deemed credit can be availed only after manufacture of final product when it is satisfied that final product is prescribed under Notification No.6/2002-CE(NT). It is also not under dispute that the input i.e. yarn used by principal and the final product i.e. processed fabrics are specified in the Notification No.6/2002-CE(NT). Therefore all the terms of Rule 11 and notification issued thereunder stand complied with, therefore the appellant have rightly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
