TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having issued Circular No. 584/21/2001 dated 7.9.2001 clarifying that the activity amounts to manufacture and collected excise duty, cannot later turn around and deny the credit alleging that the activity is not manufacture. When the duty has been discharged by the appellant for a prolonged period, the department thereafter cannot turn around and deny the credit alleging that the process does not amount to manufacture based upon new decisions evolved. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/510/2012 - Final Order No. 41131 / 2018 - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri V. Ravindran, Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es collectively incorporate necessary magnetic and electrical properties into the coils and therefore these processes would amount to manufacture and the appellant has been recognized as manufacturers by issuing registration certificate by the department. Further, the duty on the finished products has been accepted by the department even after conduct of periodical audit of accounts over the past years. In such circumstance, the department after accepting duty on finished products cannot turn around and deny credit to the appellants. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ajinkya Enterprises 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.). It is also argued by the ld. counsel that the process was held to be manufacture in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the jurisdictional High Court in the appellant s own case is with regard to the law relating to Income Tax Act and therefore cannot be applied to the present case. The process of slitting and cutting of coils whether amounts to manufacture was considered by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court and held that it does not amount to manufacture. The Board vide its Circular dated 2.3.2005 referred supra has clarified that the process does not amount to manufacture on the basis of the decision of the Hon ble High Court which was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The demand confirmed is therefore legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue for consideration is whether the demand / recovery of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. We see no merit in the above contentions. As rightly contended by the representative of the assessee appearing in person, till 1st March, 2005 the Revenue has accepted that the activity carried on by the assessee constituted manufacturing activity in view of Board Circular dated 7th September, 2001 and accordingly held that the assessee is entitled to take credit of duty paid on HR/CR coils. It is only because, the Board, on 2nd March, 2005 has withdrawn the Circular dated 7th September, 2001 the Revenue is claiming that the activity carried on by the assessee does not amount to manufacturing activity. The question is, whether on the facts of the present case, the Revenue, based on the Circular dated 2nd March, 2005, is justified in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
