9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petroleum products, Bitumen is produced. During the period from April 2013 to June 2017, Appellant used Crumb Rubber Modifier (CRM) for mixing with Bitumen to produce Crumb Rubber modified Bitumen (CRMB) which was cleared upon payment of duty from Haldia refinery. The Appellant also availed Cenvat Credit on Handling services used during the production of CRMB. Regular Excise Returns were filed reflecting the amount of Cenvat Credit claimed and utilized and clearance of CRMB upon payment of Duty. Permission for mixing CRM with Bitumen to produce CRMB was granted by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The dispute is regarding availment of Cenvat Credit on the CRM and Handling service used within the Refinery. Vide the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erprises[2009 (235) ELT 785 (Guj.)] 3) Commissioner v. Creative Enterprises [2009 (243) ELT A 120(SC)] 4) CCE, Pune-III Vs. Ajinkya Enterprise reported at 2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 (Bom.) 4. The learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant further submits that as Handling Services was used before the place of removal, there is no occasion for disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Input Services. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department relies on the impugned order and reiterates the findings therein. 6. We have considered the arguments and perused the appeal records. 7. The issue involved in this case is whether assessee has availed Cenvat Credit correctly when the activity undertaken by them on the inputs according to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial relief to the appellant". The aforesaid order shows that when the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs stand utilized for payment of duty on the final product, there would be no requirement of reversal of the said credit even if the activity undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture. 8. We may usefully refer to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III v. Ajinkya Enterprises [2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 (Bom.)], wherein, the Hon'ble High Court at paragraphs 8 and 9 has observed thus :- "8. We see no merit in the above contentions. As rightly contended by the representative of the assessee appearing in person, UI 1st March, 2005 the Revenue has accepted that the acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to manufacture. Therefore, during the relevant period, that is, during the period from 2nd March, 2005 to 31st December, 2005, it could not be said that the issue was settled and that the assessee paid duty on decoiled HR/CR coils knowing fully well that the same were not manufactured goods. If duty on decoiled HR/CR coils was paid bona fide, then availing credit of duty paid on HR/CR coils cannot be faulted". 9. In another judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
