9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Tubes & Pipes, M.S.Pipes, Black Pipes during 2006-07 & 2007-08 (upto 31.07.2007). Show Cause Notice dated 08.07.2008 was issued for the alleged contravention of process of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is the case of the Revenue that the items on which credit has been taken are classifiable under Chapter Heading 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and also alleging that the inputs have not been used for the manufacture of any finished goods, since the process undertaken by the assessee before clearing the goods, does not amount to manufacture. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued proposing to recover the alleged illegal cenvat credit availed alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... j.)] (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III vs. Ajinkya Enterprises [2013(294) E.L.T. 203(Bom.)] (c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-V vs. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes & Strips Pvt. Ltd. [2017(349) E.L.T. 686(Kar.)]. The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-V vs. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes & Strips Pvt. Ltd. (supra), are reproduced wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held has 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 que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bombay High Court at paragraphs 8 and 9 observed 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 It is only because, the Board, on 2nd March, 2005 has withdrawn the Circular dated 7th September, 2001, the Revenue is claiming that the activity carried on by the assessee does not amount to manufacturing activity.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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise & Customs, Surat-III v. Creative Enterprises - 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 treate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
