2013 (11) TMI 1293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd Electro plating/Power Coating/anodizing. According to the appellant finished products which emerge after these processes are Curtain Poles and Curtain Accessories such as Brackets, Finials and Rosette, Bolls, Rings and Cross Connectors etc. The appellant were availing Cenvat Credit of excise duty paid on the inputs and paid duty on their finished products. The Department was of the view that the process undertaken by them in respect of pipes & tubes is not manufacture and therefore they are not entitled for Cenvat Credit in respect of the inputs used by them. On this basis a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of allegedly wrongly taken Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 4,24,127/- during the period from Jan09 to July....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to manufacture as processes been undertaken are - Cutting, Pressure Die Casting, Drilling, Taping, Turning, Machining, Buffing and Electro plating/ Power Coating/anodizing, that by these processes the final products which merge are Brackets, Finials, Rosette, Bolls, Rings, Cross Connectors and Curtain Poles, that the processes undertaken by the appellant amount to manufacture, that in any case when the amount collected from the customers as duty was paid to the Government, there is no question of demand under section 11D, that when the appellant have paid duty on the finished products, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied even if according to the Department the processes undertaken do not amount to manufacture, as that in this regard, he re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om customers as duty which was not payable, that amount is recoverable from them under section 11D and that in view of this, this is not the case for waiver for the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. So far as the demand under section 11D is concerned, when it is not disputed that appellant have paid duty on final products by treating their process as manufacture and it is this duty which they recovered from the customers, it cannot be said that the amount recovered by the appellant from the customers as duty was not paid to the Government. Therefore, prima facie, the demand under section 11D is not sustainable and as such on this point the appellant have strong p....