9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining crude oil, one of the petroleum products, Bitumen comes into existence. During the period April, 2000 to March, 2011, covered by 9(nine) show cause notices, Bitumen in bulk packs was transferred under bond and thereafter upon payment of duty to the appellant's unit at Uluberia. For the purpose of packing in drums, owing to space constraint in the Haldia refinery, permission for such transfer was granted by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. Bitumen was mixed with duty paid Superior Kerosene Oil (SKO) and thereafter packed in duty paid empty barrels. The dispute is regarding availment of Cenvat Credit on the duty paid SKO and the barrels. Vide the adjudication order Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 1,06,25,28,184/- was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the appeal records. The issue involved in this case is whether assessee have availed Cenvat Credit correctly or otherwise when the activity undertaken by them on the inputs according to Revenue does not amount to manufacture. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore-V v. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes & Strips Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat have held as under:- "3. We may record that the Tribunal in the impugned order at paragraph 2 has observed thus:- "2. It is undisputed that the appellants were paying duty of excise on their final product by utilizing the Cenvat credit. As such, the question required to be decided is that irrespecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved thus:- "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assessee is entitled to take credit of duty paid on HR/CR coils, It is only because, the Board, on 2nd March, 2005 has withdrawn the Circular dated 7th September, 2001, the Revenue is claiming that the activity carried on by the assessee does not amount to manufacturing activity.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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.) at paragraph 6, it was observed thus:- "6. When one goes through the order of the first appellate authority, it is apparent that the respondent has been held to be a manufacturer as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority has taken into consideration the activities carried on by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal is justified in holding that if the activity of the respondent-assessee does not amount to manufacture there can be no question of levy of duty and if duty is levied. Modvat credit cannot be denied by holding that there is no manufacture". 7. It is an undisputed position that the final product is treated as dutiable and duty is paid by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
