TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposite panels amounts to manufacture of a distinct product commercially known as different. order of the Tribunal is set aside and the orders of the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is restored by answering the substantial question of law in favor of the revenue and against the assessee. Further, the decision of the Karnataka High Court has been challenged by the appellant and the appeal is also pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court but stay has been rejected. Therefore in the absence of any stay in favour of the appellant, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is the jurisdictional High Court is binding on us - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/1143/2012-SM - Final Order No. 20700/2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, on detailed examination, it appeared that the appellant's activity involved to cut the sheets of ACP into required sizes, shapes and made to customer's requirements along with grooving and assembling at site for use in structures and it appeared that such activity amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; that the CBEC has also issued an order No. 58/1/2002/CX dated 01.01.2002 under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the excisability of goods manufactured at site wherein it has been clarified that for the goods manufactured at site to be dutiable, they should have a new identity, character and use distinct from the inputs/components that have gone into its production. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court of Karnataka by the department for restoring the Order-in-Appeal NO. 196/2005 dated 28.10.2005. The Honourable High Court of Karnataka vide its Order dated 1.04.2010 (in CEA NO.17/2007) has upheld the departmental contention. Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner issued Show Cause Notice dated 12.03.2007 (subsequently followed by corrigendum dated 12.04.2011 making the Show Cause Notice answerable to the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Il Commissionerate, Bangalore) for demand of erroneously refunded amount of ₹ 21,46,437/-( ₹ 2,61,682/-in cash +Rs. 18, 84,755/- in Cenvat account). The adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice, in the impugned order has demanded the erron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty, even then it could not have been termed as erroneous refund. He also submitted that the show-cause notice itself was void ab initio and consequently the demand arising out of such notice is not sustainable in law. He also submitted the Circular No.275/37/2K-CX.8A dt. 02/01/2002. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that aggrieved by the order of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 2011 (273) ELT 377, appellant has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with the stay application. But the stay has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this fact has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant also. He further submitted that the objection raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding steel plate to make Steel Band which is a product with distinct name and character is 'manufacture'. The goods in the instant case cannot be equated with the aluminium sheets in running length used for manufacturing the aluminium composite panels, In view of the foregoing we are of the view that cutting, grooving of the Aluminium sheet to make Aluminium composite panels amounts to manufacture of a distinct product commercially known as different Therefore we find that the view expressed by the Tribunal that no manufacturing activity is carried out by the respondent-assessee is contrary to the material on record and also the judgments of the Apex Court Hence the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the orders of the Addl. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
