TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of appellant is that once it was held by the Revenue that activity of repacking and re-labelling does not amount to manufacture, all the duty paid on such repacked goods become refundable - Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that: - Additional Commissioner while disposing of SCN proposing denial of Cenvat credit clearly held that demand is not sustainable on the ground that appellant have cleared the repacked goods on payment of duty - when the appellant have availed the Cenvat credit and paid excise duty even though the activity does not amount to manufacture, amount of excise duty paid by them cannot be refundable. The appellant’s activity of taking Cenvat credit on the duty paid goods received in the factory and re-issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 6-8-2014 seeking to recover the Cenvat credit of ₹ 24,17,100/-alleging it as wrongly availed on the basis of audit objection. The said show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 14-8-2015 by the Additional Commissioner, Raigad Commissionerate in favour of the appellant holding that activities of re-packing, re-labelling of Solvent C-9 (Chapter Sub Heading2707 9900) do not amount to manufacture, however he quashed the demand of ₹ 24,17,100/-towards Cenvat credit on the ground that duty was paid at the time of clearance on the value addition of repacking goods, the credit availed stands reversed while utilizing the same for payment of duty. It was further observed by the Additional Commissioner that ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rates the ground of cross objection. 4.Heard both sides and perused the records. 5.As regard the Appeal No. E/86561/16 MUM, I find that the demand was confirmed invoking Rule 6(3)(i) Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 on the ground that appellant s activity of repacking and re-labeling does not amount to manufacture therefore activity amount to trading only, consequently, trading activity being exempted service, it attracts the payment under Rule 6(3) (i), I find that it is undisputed fact that appellant even though the activity does not amount to manufacture but cleared re-packed goods on payment of duty, which is more than the amount payable under Rule 6(3)(i), once the goods have been cleared on payment of duty Rule 6(3)(i) cannot be applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he process to which the goods are subjected before being removed does not amount to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken under sub-rule (1) and in any other case the manufacturer shall pay duty on goods received under sub-rule (1) at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be.[ Explanation. - The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods.] (3) If there is any difficulty in following the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the assessee may receive the goods for bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
