TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hos purchased in bulk, into smaller retails packs and cleared the same under the appellant s brand on payment of excise duty. It is also not disputed that during the impugned period process of repacking of the said goods does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the issue before us is that whether the MODAVT/CENVAT credit taken by the appellants on Chloroypyriphos which were cleared by them on payment of duty, after the process of re-packing and affixing their brands is legally correct or not. The appellant have paid more duty than the credit availed after value addition. When duty paid at the time of clearance equal to or higher than the credit availed, the same is to be treated as reversal of credit. Therefore, no further reversal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .11.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), Central Excise, Rajkot. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants had availed the modvat credit of Rs. 2,76,650/- under erstwhile Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the purchase of item Chloropyriphos falling under chapter heading 3808.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which is also one of the finished products. The said products was purchased in bulk and repacked in the factory of production in smaller packs of different sizes and had been cleared on payment duty. It appeared that the modvat credit availed by them was not admissible to them in terms of erstwhile Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as the process of repacking into smaller pack from bulk cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) CCE Vs. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes and Strips Pvt. Ltd. 2017(349)ELT 686 (Kar) (iv) IVP Ltd. Vs. CCE-2012-TIOL-1505-CESTAT-MUM (v) Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Vs. Fine Packaging Pvt. Ltd. 2016(335)ELT 117 (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tata Steel Ltd. 2017(349) ELT 783 (vii) PSL Holding Ltd. Vs. CCE 2003 (156)ELT 602 (viii) Ajay MetachemPvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2006-TIOL-667-CESTAT MUM (ix) Orion Ropes P. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2006-TIOL-391-CESTAT- MUM (x) Systematic Steel Inds Ltd Vs. CCE 2005-TIOL-272-CESTAT-MUM (xi) Stumpp Schedule Somappa Ltd. Vs. CCE 2005 (191) ELT 1085 (xii) PerfoChem (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015(315) ELT 237 5. He also argued that in fact on account of value addition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing the credit on input /disputed goods does not arise. 9. In the matter in hand before us, we find that the appellant have paid more duty than the credit availed after value addition. When duty paid at the time of clearance equal to or higher than the credit availed, the same is to be treated as reversal of credit. Therefore, no further reversal of credit is required as held by Tribunal in number of cases. Such payment of duty that too in excess of the credit availed tantamount to reversal of credit and there is no need to once again reverse the Modavt/Cenvat credit taken. In a similar situation, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Narmada Chemattur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.)] held that when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
