2006 (2) TMI 365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri Ganesh Havanur, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against OIA No. 68/2003 dated 18th July, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-ll), Bangalore. 2. The appellant obtained Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of Footwear. Even though they had a factory at Peenya, due to labour problem, the pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nished footwear and despatch the same from their premises. Since the appellants had neither installed Plant and Machinery for the manufacture of footwear nor had any manpower for utilisation in the manufacture of excisable goods, it was felt that the credit taken was irregular. The original authority disallowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 9,45,285.03 and further disallowed the credit of Rs. 2,53,148.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enue loss, he requested that the matter may be viewed leniently. 5. The learned SDR said that there is lot of irregularity in the sense that without having any manufacturing facility, the appellants had availed Cenvat credit. Moreover, the invoices wherein inputs were received were addressed to Peenya factory. The appellants also issued Cenvat invoices while transferring inputs to the job ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... word "manufacturer" shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of Excisable goods but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account. In the present case, the appellants got their goods manufactured from the job workers. In the light of the definition of the 'manufacturer', it cannot be said that the appellants are ....