TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07, the appellants, M/s. Swastik Engineering received brass strips, phosphor bronze strips and copper plate sheets in coil form and took credit of duty paid on them. The appellants undertook the process of decoiling and cutting/slitting of brass, phosphor bronze and copper coils into strips of lesser width. They cleared such strips of brass, phosphor bronze and copper on payment of applicable duty of Central Excise. The assessee had taken a total credit of Rs. 3,50,33,094/- during the material period. After due process of law, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Commissionerate, confirmed demand of Rs. 3,50,33,094/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (the CCR) read with proviso to Section 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jor inputs and final products. Subsequent to the issuance of the Central Excise Registration Certificate, the appellants' factory premises was visited and verified by the Central Excise officers. After obtaining the registration, the appellants filed the monthly ER-1 returns without any break during the entire period in question i.e. December 2005 to December 2007. The ER-1 returns (Volume-II of the Appeal Book), duly acknowledged month after month by the Range Office, clearly show the complete details like availment of Cenvat credit on the inputs, quantity and value of goods manufactured by the appellants and payment of duty made on such manufactured goods. Thus, it is self-evident that the appellants have not withheld any information from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. We have perused the case records and carefully studied the submissions. We find that the Commissioner decided that the activity undertaken by the appellants does not constitute manufacture relying on Circular No. 811/8/2005-CX dated 2-3-2005 issued by CBEC in the wake of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Faridabad Iron and Steel Traders Association v. Union of India [2004 (178) E.L.T. 1099 (Del.)] and sustained by the Apex Court [2005 (181) E.L.T. A68 (S.C.)]. We do not find merit in the argument that in the appellants' case, cutting/slitting of bronze, brass and copper plates/coils into narrower strips amounts to manufacture. No new goods emerge in the process. We do not find any me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material period. It had periodically filed returns relating to receipt of inputs and availment of Cenvat credit. It had also filed periodical monthly returns showing payment of Central Excise duty on its final products. The authorities never raised objection to the assessee taking and utilizing Cenvat credit during the material period for payment of duty on its final products as reflected in the monthly ER-1 returns. Therefore the impugned demand invoking larger period under Rule 14 of the CCR read with proviso to Section 11A is not sustainable. The Revenue has not made a case that the assessee had suppressed any relevant fact from the department or took Cenvat credit of duty paid with intention to evade payment of duty on final products. ....