TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment - Appellants have also produced ER-1 returns for the disputed period wherein the details of CENVAT credit availed in respect of inputs and the duty paid on the final products are clearly shown - Further, in total, the appellants have availed CENVAT credit to the tune of ₹ 90,89,714/- during the relevant period but had paid an amount of ₹ 97,41,477/- which is more than the credit availed by them. This issue is squarely covered by the decision in ASHOK ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [ 2007 (11) TMI 67 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] where it was held that even if duty wasn t payable on final good (there being no manufacture), there was no question of recovery of credit, having been utilized towards payment of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.1116 of 2009-DB - Final Order No. 21204/2019 - Dated:- 2-12-2019 - HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MR. C. J. MATHEW, TECHNICAL MEMBER Mr. Pradhyumna. G.H, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Rama Holla, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER : S.S GARG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed without properly appreciating the facts, the statutory provisions and the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the following facts are not in dispute in the present case. (i) Appellants are engaged in the activity of cutting/slitting of Brass Strips, Phosphor Bronze Strips and Copper Strips falling under Chapter subheading 7409 2100, 7409 1100 and 7409 3100 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) Appellants had availed CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on inputs received in coil form; (iii) Appellants, after converting the coils into strips by undertaking operations of slitting/cutting had cleared the finished goods viz., strips on payment of duty by utilizing CENVAT credit availed on the inputs as also in cash. 4.1 He further submitted that the appellant had obtained Central Excise Registration under bona fide impression that the activity of slitting of coils of various items into strips amounted to manufacturing activity within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act and while applying for registration, the appellant had disclosed complete facts to the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asian Colours Coated Ispat Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi: 2015 (37) ELT 538 (Tri.-Del.) CCE vs. Fine Packaging Pvt. Ltd.: 2016 (335) ELT 117 (Tri.-Mumbai) Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. vs. CCE: 206 (336) ELT 81 (Tri.-Mumbai) 4.2 It is his further submission that the appellants were otherwise entitled to avail credit and pass on the credit as a trader as held by the Hon ble CESTAT, Bangalore in the appellant s own case in Final Order No.631/2010 dated 28.10.2009. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner has rightly denied the CENVAT credit to the appellant because the activity carried on by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and the appellant has wrongly availed the CENVAT credit on the inputs. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: CCE, Jamshedpur vs. Castings (India) Inc.: 2016 (342) ELT 343 (Jhar.) CCE, Mumbai vs. Rajpurohit GMP India Ltd.: 2008 (231) ELT 577 (SC) Anil Dang vs. CCE, Vapi: 2007 (213) ELT 29 (Tri.-LB) 6. After considering the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to manufacture , that the assessee was not entitled to take CENVAT credit on black bars inasmuch as, bright bars were not excisable. The assessee took the stand that the credit was not liable to be denied as duty was actually paid on bright bars . Assessee s contention was upheld in view of the Tribunal s decision in Syndet India v. CCE, Navi Mumbai - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 349 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it was held that even if duty was not payable on the finished goods (there being no manufacture), there was no question of recovery of any credit having been utilized towards payment of such duty. In our final order dated 30-7-2007 ibid, we also observed that the decision rendered as early as on 9-12-2003 by the Tribunal in Syndet India case had been accepted by the Revenue and, therefore, it was not open to them to deny the CENVAT credit. The view taken by us in the case of Super Forgings and Steels Ltd. (supra) is squarely in support of the appellants case. 6.1 Further, in the case of Vickers Systems International cited supra, the Division Bench of the Tribunal in identical case has held in para 16 and 17 which is as under: 16. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
