2015 (1) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Promod Kumar, Jt.CDR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): The appellants have been denied the Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,48,80,202/- availed and utilized by them for payment of duty on their final product 'bright bars' on the ground that activity of conversion of rods and rounds does not amount to manufacture and as such, the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of Vee Kayan Industries Vs. Collector of CE, Chandigarh 1996 (83) ELT 262 (SC). It was also followed by CESTAT in the case of Geeta Bright Bar Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-V 2012 (277) ELT 67 (Tri.-Mumbai). Thus it is pointless to indulge in any discussion regarding the contention of the appellants that their process amounted to manufacture as the issue is no longer res-integra for the releva....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Extrusions (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Belapur 2014-TIOL-1867-CESTAT-MUM has held as under:                3. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the appellants has processed the inputs and the same has been cleared on payment of duty therefore, if their activity is to be held as amounts to manufacture, the duty paid for....