2014 (3) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ars did not amount to manufacture and proposed to recover irregular CENVAT credit of Rs.22,36,512/- during the period 1.6.2003 to 30.6.2004. The notice was issued on the basis of that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Technoweld Industries - 2003 (155) ELT 209 (SC) held that drawing of wire from wire rods do not amount to manufacture. The adjudicating authority ordered recovery of CENVAT credit of Rs.22,36,512/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent. There is no appl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ufacture. By an amendment in the Budget, 2004, Note 10 was inserted in Section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to declare the said process as amounting to 'manufacture'. However, as the said Section Note was effective from 9-7-04, it did not resolve the problem for the said period. 4.3 Accordingly, Show Cause Notices were issued to wire drawing units for recovery of Cenvat Credit availed on inputs on the grounds that the process of wire drawing did not amount to manufacture for the said period. Show Cause Notices were also issued to the downstream buyers of 'drawn wires' who availed Cenvat Credit of amount paid as duty on drawn wire, on the ground that the sum paid on clearance of 'drawn wire' by wire drawing unit did not repre....