TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and Oiled Coils' showing classification under Tariff entry No. 72083940. Ongoing through the registration certificate of M/s. Uttam Galva Steel Ltd it is noticed that the "H.R. Coils", was appearing in-the major input list, declared in their application for Central Excise Registration. Since the. tariff classification of inputs i.e. H.R. Coils was 72083940 and the tariff classification of their finished products "H.R. Coil pickled & Oiled" is also shown as same, doubts were raised as to whether the Input goods, were cleared/exported as such. 2.1 Subsequent to above, the Range superintendent had further confirmed that after receipt of H.R. Coils the process of slitting, trimming, pickling and oiling is carried out in the factory premises of the claimant.. 2.2 The applicant vide their letter dated 21.05.2010 confirmed that the inputs i.e. H. R. Coils received in the factory are subjected to the process of Slitting, Pickling, Oiling and trimming and explained the processes involved in detail. 2.3 It was also clarified by the applicant, that the tariff classification of the resultant product i.e H. R. Coils Pickled and Oiled Coils has been inadvertently mentioned in the docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mjs Ajinkya Enterprises, Pune and several other orders of Tribunal and Board Circular, the Cenvat Credit availed on inputs need .not be reversed even .if the activity does not amount to manufacture and therefore the demand prior to 24.6.2010 does not sustain. But for the period beyond 24.6.2010 the reversal of Cenvat Credit has been ordered. (iv) In the instant case the duty paid has been accepted by the department and at the same time which is also more than the Cenvat credit availed by the claimant and once the duty on final product has been accepted by the department, Cenvat credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. 2.8 The original authority rejected the entire rebate claim on the ground that process undertaken by the applicant does not amount to manufacture. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stries Ltd. v. Union of India 2011 (270) ELT 308 (Born) 4.5 The applicant had an option to claim rebate of duty in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also refund or to claim refund of duty in terms of the settled law. Thus, when statutorily the applicant had the option to claim `rebate` or to obtain `refund', it is not permissible for the Departmental authorities to deny either claim on the ground that the other is pending. The Applicant places reliance upon the following decisions wherein it has been held an :applicant is entitled to benefits under two different Notification or rider-two, different heads, he can chose to claim the one which is more beneficial and it is duty of the authorities to grant such benefit if applicant is a) CCE Baroda v. Indian petro Chemicals (1997) 92 ELT 13 (SC) b) HCL Ltd. Versus New Delhi (2001) 13O ELT 405 (SC) c) Share Medical Care V. Union of India (2007) 209 ELT 321 (SC) o) CCE Meerut V Modi Xerox Ltd (2012) 275 ELT 406 (ALL) 4.6 It is further submitted that the instant case is not one-of double benefit being claimed by the applicant. On the contrary the question of double benefit would arise only if one of the benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sually in an acidic or alkaline solution 4.10 The applicant also relies upon -the Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 11th Edition by N. Irving Sax and Rickard J. Lewis, Sr. to submit that the process of pickling is expansive and requires a lot of labor and changes the nature of the article subsequent to the pickling process. 4.11 The Applicant further submits that the scope of the expression 'manufacture' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act is very wide and inter alia "includes any process, incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product' as also "any process which in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer, and the word 'manufacture' shall be construed accordingly and shall include not only a person Who employs hired". Therefore, the activities carried: out by the applicant are very well covered within the scope of this definition. 4.12 It is s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts issuance. Reliance is placed upon the following decisions in Support of this submission 4.17 It is clear that-the rebate of duty is even for the duty paid on materials used processing of exported goods. In such a case, it is not necessary whether the person claiming rebate is engaged in manufacture or not. Reliance is placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Ford India Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 2011. (272) ELT 353 (Mad) wherein it has been inter alia held (in paragraph 36 thereof) that "it is wholly unnecessary for the first respondent herein to get into the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of rebate, where the assessee is a manufacturer or not, to come under the scope of Rules 12 or 18 of the Central Excise Rules, as the case may be, pertaining to the relevant period under consideration." 4.18 The applicant submits that the action of the Department in accepting the duty and thereafter rejecting the rebate claim amounts to approbation and reprobation, which is not permissible in law. The applicant submits that while the department has accepted the excise d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad wherein, the, Commissioner adjudicated two show cause notices issued vide F.No. V/Adj(SCN)15-55/RGD/10-11 dated 25.6.2010 (issued for denial of cenvat credit availed from June 2005 to March 2010) and F.No.V/Adj(SCN)15-19/RGD/11-12 dated 6.5.2011 (issued for denial of cenvat credit for subsequent period i.e. from April 2010 to February 2011). 8.1 Government finds that the Commissioner of Central Excise has discussed in detail, the applicability of Board's Circular No. 927/17/2010-Cx dated 24.10.10 with regard to issue of manufacture. The Commissioner in para 37, 39 and 46 has observed as under: "37. As already discussed, the Board clarified vide circular No.927/17/2010- Cx dated 24.6 2010, on representation on the question of whether pickling and oiling amount to manufacture in the light of the circular No.811/8/2005-Cx dated 02.03.05, that "mere undertaking the process of oiling and pickling as preparatory steps do not amount to manufacture" which does not throw much of light to resolve the process undertaken by the noticee to be manufacture, contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct that the department has accepted duty paid by the appellants on their clearances and as per judicial pronouncement in the case of Ashok Enterprises, Super Forgings, SAIL, M.P. Telelinks Ltd, Creative Enterprises which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court that once duty on final products has been accepted by the department in the case, .CENVAT credit cannot be denied even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. 12. Therefore in view of the above discussion, we find that the duty paid by the appellants has been accepted by the department which is admittedly more than the CENVAT credit availed by the appellants Therefore, following the various judicial pronouncements as discussed above, we hold that the appellant are not required to reverse the credit." The observations of the hon'ble Bombay High Court are also no different from the above- The Hon'ble Court observed at pare 10 and 11 of its Order thus: "10. Apart from the above, in the present case; the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from' the factory of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these decisions of higher authorities, reversal of CENVAT credit is not sustainable in the instant case prior to issue of clarification on 24 06.2010 by the Board. The department has also continued letting the payment of duty on these goods in monthly ER-1 s and ARE-1 claims of rebate without objection and thus the proposal for reversal of CENVA T credit shall not sustain upto 23.06.2010. However, in light of the above clarification by the Beard on 24.06.2010, benefit of CENVAT credit is not available Prospectively. ii) The demands also hit-by bar of limitation as discussed-at para-38 supra. Apart from the above, the noticee is not liable for penal action as proposed in the notices except for availing of CENIVAT credit that is liable to reversal as concluded above. However, in the absence of any suppression of facts, no penalty under rule 15(2) of CENVA T Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC can be imposed on them as proposed in the notice. On the other hand, they are liable to penal action under rule 15(1) ibid. Similarly, the amount' paid by them as duty during the material period cannot be treated as deposit under section 11 D, as discussed at para 43 & 44 Supra ". Fu....