TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The brief facts of the case are that: 2.1 M/s. Raymond Ltd (Division - J.K. Files & Tools) (hereinafter referred to 'as the appellant') situated at Jekegram, Pokhran Road No. 1, Thane - 400 606, holder of Central Excise Registration No. AAACR4896AXM005, were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 8203.00, 7204.30, 7326.19, 7228.00 and 7228.30 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and were availing the benefit of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. They had also submitted Letter of Undertaking (LUT) which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai - III and which was valid up to 03/10/2005 for export. Thereafter, the appellant had executed B-1 Bond fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Grain 2818.19 727 kgs 2.4 The total CENVAT credit in respect of 'inputs' was shown as Rs. 1920.37 + Rs. 561.69 = Rs. 2482.06 and the total CENVAT Credit balance in respect of 'capital goods' was shown as Rs. 30108.80 + Rs. 634.53 = Rs. 3742.33. 2.5 However, it was noticed that the appellants were continuing to receive inputs and availing CENVAT credit of the duty paid on such inputs and, therefore, for the period January, 2005 to Feb 2007 it was noticed that at the material time there were no finished / semi finished goods lying in stock. 2.6 Further, on enquiry it was revealed that the appellants had brought duty paid excisable goods viz. Alloy Rod File Steel (Hot Rolled) etc. and taken the credit of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere registered, they should have de-registered themselves by making a declaration in the from specified in Annexure III and deposited the registration certificate with the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. The appellant should have also reversed the CENVAT credit lying unutilised in their account at the material time i.e. on 01/01/2005. 2.9 It also appeared that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, inasmuch as the said Rule allows a manufacturer to avail credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services used for the manufacture of final goods whereas in the instant case the appellant was not carrying out any manufacturing activity an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ersal of CENVAT credit. He also submitted that the alloy rod file steel (hot rolled) were brought into their factory and after the process of softening on the hot rolled steels, it was sent to the job-worker for converting into rods and bars. As per Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 where any goods on which duty had been paid at the time of removal thereof are brought to any factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason, the assessee shall state the particulars of such receipt in his records and shall be entitled to take CENVAT credit of the duty paid as if such goods are received as inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and utilise this credit according to the said rules. He further submitted that,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re to be followed strictly as held by various pronouncements of this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble apex court. To support his contention, he place reliance on Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. 2009 TIOL649 HC; Ahmednagar Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2009 (15) STR 729 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Amrit Paper vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana 2008 (12) STR 536 (SC). He also rely on the decision in the case of Jessop & Company Ltd. vs. Union of India 2010 (250) ELT 490 (Cal.). He further submitted that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of P.V. Sanghvi vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of this case it is very much clear that the appellant have taken inadmissible credit but they have paid the same at the time of clearance with value addition. In that scenario, as held by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., cited supra, where the assessee has wrongly availed modvat credit and was liable to reverse such amount and it was stated that the duty paid and modvat credit availed were identical and therefore consequences of payment of excise duty after availing the credit was revenue neutral. In that case the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble apex court holding that in view of the fact that, admittedly there was no revenue implication and, therefore, the appea....