TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Chennai remands duty exemption case for 100% EOU goods to verify manufacturing activities</h1> <h3>M/s. Ajinomoto India Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai</h3> M/s. Ajinomoto India Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - TMI Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are whether the appellant is eligible for exemption from payment of duty when clearing goods to 100% EOUs, and whether the activity of repacking and re-labeling amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944.Exemption Eligibility Issue:The appellant held Central Excise Registration for manufacturing Mono-sodium Glutamate (MSG) and availed CENVAT Credit on inputs. The Department contended that to be eligible for duty exemption when clearing goods to 100% EOUs, inputs should be used to manufacture finished goods at the factory. A Show Cause Notice was issued for duty demand on inputs cleared to EOUs. The original authority confirmed duty demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that repacking and re-labeling constitute manufacture, citing a previous favorable decision. The Tribunal remanded the matter to verify if goods were cleared as such and directed consideration of the manufacturing contention.Manufacture Activity Issue:The appellant claimed that re-packing and re-labelling the inputs before clearing to EOUs amounts to 'manufacture.' The Department argued that the appellant cleared inputs as such, making them ineligible for duty exemption. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the appellant's activities and remanded the matter for verification and consideration of the manufacturing claim. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further adjudication based on the manufacturing contention and previous favorable decisions.Separate Judgment:The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial), and Hon'ble Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical).
TaxTMI 