TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Chandigarh in the case of DHRUV INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS CCE, DELHI-III (VICE-VERSA) [ 2018 (4) TMI 1492 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] have also, under similar facts and circumstances, distinguished the ruling of Metalex (supra) and held that a new product comes into existence by use of the various raw materials viz., Poly Propylene, Polyester Films of Aluminium Zinc, which is coated and further the process required use of capital goods/ machinery involving substantial cost and such process of manufacture takes about 36 hours. It was held that a new product comes into existence. The process of making MPP Films, capacitor grade from plain plastic film would amount to manufacturing process and the MPP classifiable under CETH 3920 2090 would be a manufactured good. Once the process is considered as manufacturing process, the credit becomes admissible. Accordingly, Appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit, which has been disallowed by the Impugned Order. Appeal allowed. - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY (JUDICIAL) AND MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Ch. Sumanth, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Chittaranjan Wagh Prakash, AR for the Respondent. ORDER Heard the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 (274) ELT A81 (SC)] remanded the matter to the Tribunal for the fresh decision. b) Thus, the department has been contending as late as in 2007 that the process of metallization would amount to manufacture and is liable to duty. Further, the authorities did not object to the payment of excise duty at any point of time immediately after the said judgement of the Apex Court. c) Therefore, the Appellant also entertained a bonafide belief that the process of metallization amounts to manufacture and consequently paid duty on clearance of MPP Film. d) The Appellant submits that the judgment in the case of Metalex (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Metalex, the Hon ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the activity of metallization does not amount to manufacture only on the ground that the department has not discharged its duty to prove manufacture. The Hon ble Supreme Court did not go into the merits of the matter to decide the issue whether the metallization amounts to manufacture. e) The Appellant relies on the decision in the case of Dhruv Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-III reported at [2019 (365) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jinkya Enterprises, (2013) 294 ELT 203 wherein the Hon ble High Court observed that: Apart from the above, in the present case, the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from the factory of the assessee on payment of duty has neither been reversed nor it is held that the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid at the time of clearing the decoiled HR/CR coils. In these circumstances, the CESTAT following its decision in the case of Ashok Enterprises - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 586 (T), Super Forgings - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 559 (T), S.A.I.L. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 520 (T) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 640 (Tribunal), M.P. Telelinks Limited - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 167 (T) and a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE v. Creative Enterprises reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.) has held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture. Admittedly, similar view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Creative Enterprises has been upheld by the Apex Court [see 2009 (243) E.L.T. A121] by dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue. . d) Further reliance is pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (320) E.L.T. 357 (Mad.)]. j) In the present case the final product i.e., capacitor is a dutiable good and therefore, there is no basis for reversal of cenvat credit taken on inputs. k) The Appellant submits that Zinc Ingots are used for manufacture of dutiable goods i.e., capacitors and hence credit cannot be denied for an amount of Rs. 11,94,038/-. l) The Appellant has availed credit of Rs. 1,83,40,731/- on various inputs used for MPP exported. The Appellant submits that they have paid duty on exports and claimed and received rebate of duty paid on final products. The Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has dropped the proposal of recovery of rebate sanctioned to the Appellant but has confirmed recovery of credit of inputs used for export of MPP. The Appellant submits that once the rebate order is sanctioned and refunded, the Appellant is entitled for credit of Rs. 1,83,40,731/-. m) In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Dhruv Industries (Supra)wherein it was held that since the activity of metallization of PP Films amounts to manufacture and they were entitled to take cenvat credit on the inputs and capital goods, the assessee was also entitled to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
