https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783653 Cutting/slitting of HR/CR coils was held not to amount to "manufacture", applying the binding ratio of Del HC affirmed by SC and the CBEC circular withdrawing contrary guidance; the assessee's contrary treatment was rejected and the issue was decided for Revenue. Since no manufacture occurred, HR/CR coils could not qualify as "inputs" under Rule 2(k) CCR, making CENVAT credit inadmissible ab initio and rendering Rule 3(5) inapplicable; recovery of credit with interest was upheld. Inflated valuation was found to be a colourable device to encash/pass on lapsed credit; the overvaluation charge was sustained. Amounts collected as "duty" on non-excisable goods attracted s.11D(1A); deposit was confirmed. Suppression/misstatement justified the extended period and penalty under s.11AC; the appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783653 Cutting/slitting of HR/CR coils was held not to amount to "manufacture", applying the binding ratio of Del HC affirmed by SC and the CBEC circular withdrawing contrary guidance; the assessee's contrary treatment was rejected and the issue was decided for Revenue. Since no manufacture occurred, HR/CR coils could not qualify as "inputs" under Rule 2(k) CCR, making CENVAT credit inadmissible ab initio and rendering Rule 3(5) inapplicable; recovery of credit with interest was upheld. Inflated valuation was found to be a colourable device to encash/pass on lapsed credit; the overvaluation charge was sustained. Amounts collected as "duty" on non-excisable goods attracted s.11D(1A); deposit was confirmed. Suppression/misstatement justified the extended period and penalty under s.11AC; the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783653