TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mumbai [ 2014 (3) TMI 521 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] have distinguished the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Metalex India Pvt Ltd., vs CCE [ 2004 (2) TMI 387 - SUPREME COURT ] and have held that under similar facts and circumstances, the process amounts to manufacture. It is further found that Coordinate Bench in Chandigarh in the case of Dhruv Industries Ltd., vs CCE, Delhi-III [ 2018 (4) TMI 1492 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH ] have also, under similar facts and circumstances, distinguished the ruling of Metalex 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 invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g No.8532 2500 and (ii) Electronic Capacitor Grade Metallized Dielectric Plastic Film (MPP Film) falling under Chapter 3920 2090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. b) The Production process of Capacitor begins with making MPP out of Plain Plastic Film. In addition to captive use of MPP in the capacitor, MPP are also cleared to DTA. c) The case of the department in the present proceedings is that the process of making MPP from plastic film does not amount to manufacture and hence are not entitled for credit. d) The Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order denied the credit on inputs and capital goods on the ground that the activity of metallization does not amount to manufacture. e) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntertained 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submits as follows: a) The MPP Films were cleared to DTA on payment of duty. Without prejudice to the above submissions, that the Appellant has undertaken manufacturing activity, credit cannot be denied as the output excise duty is discharged by the Appellant to the tune of Rs. 87,59,377/- as against credit availed amounting to Rs. 56,14,519/-. b) In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of M/s. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Vishal Precision Steel Tubes and Strips Pvt Ltd., reported at [2017 (349) E.L.T. 686 (kar.)]. c) The Appellant has made payment of duty on the DTA clearances and thus the cenvat credit availed on the PP Films thereof is to be treated as reversal of cenvat credit. In this regard, reliance is pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) Commissioner Vs. Creative enterprises- 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 affirmed by the Apex Court in 2009 (243) E.L.T. A120 (S.C.) iii) CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Sunrise Industries 2015(315) E.L.T 62 (TriMum) e) The Appellant further submits that 3,70,791.600 kgs (Credit amount of Rs. 52,67,111/-) of MPP is consumed captively in the manufacture of capacitors on which duty is paid and hence credit cannot be denied. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of M/s. Needle Industries Limited Vs. CCE, Salem reported at 2015 (317) E.L.T. 529 (Tri- Chennai). f) The Appellant submits that credit of Rs. 3,63,422/- is denied on the capital goods on the ground that the same is used for manufacture of (5) non-excisable goods and hence denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tegra. We find that under similar facts and circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Paper Products Ltd., vs CCE, Mumbai [2014 (304) ELT 145] have distinguished the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Metalex India Pvt Ltd., vs CCE [2014 (165) ELT 129 (SC)] and have held that under similar facts and circumstances, the process amounts to manufacture. We further find that Coordinate Bench in Chandigarh in the case of Dhruv Industries Ltd., vs CCE, Delhi-III [2019 (365) ELT 644] 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 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
