TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... moulds of specific shape and dimensions (as per the packing container of the user of such sleeves) and such cut sleeves heated upto a specified temperature to get particular shape and so formed sleeves are thereafter used to seal the caps of plastic containers. Revenue s case is that the above process amounts to manufacture and therefore appellant is liable to pay excise duty. Appellant on the other hand contends that no new commodity has come into existence and therefore the process undertaken by them will not amount to manufacture and therefore no excise duty is liable to be paid. After investigation which included testing of the goods in the Central Excise Laboratory and recording of statement etc., a demand notice was issued which was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Advocate was that the inputs received were duty paid and therefore they would be entitled to get CENVAT Credit on inputs. This plea was taken by them before the original authority and the first appellate authority but no findings have been given by both the authorities on the said contention. If benefit of CENVAT Credit is given, the demand itself will get reduced substantially. Learned Counsel quoted the following judgements in support of various contentions:- 1. CCE v. Dhariyal Chemicals 2014 (309) ELT 727 (Tri.) 2. CCE v. Nagad Narayan Food Products 2012 (284) ELT 628 (Tri.) 3. CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd., - 2011 (266) ELT 160 (Bom.) 4. PSL v. CCE 2009 (16) STR 247 (Tri.) 5. True Forge Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2003 (159) ELT 1175 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acture. Learned A.R. also stated that extended period of limitation is correctly invoked as the investigation though started in 2000 continued due to various representations etc by the appellant and could be finally concluded in 2003. He also quoted the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Surat v. Neminath Fabrics Pvt Ltd. 2011-TIOL-10-HC-AHM-CX to argue that the knowledge of the department is not relevant for invoking proviso to Section 11A. Learned A.R. also quoted the case before the Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi in the case of ELG India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (303) ELT 283 (A.A.R.) to argue that even the segregation of scrap of different grades amounts to manufacture. Further the learned A.R. also quoted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pose and can be used as shrink wrap. The formed sleeves can be used for only sealing the plastic containers. Inputs are biaxially oriented whole output is fully oriented blown/formed. Thus in our view all the three conditions are satisfied and the process would therefore amount to manufacture. 5.1 We have carefully gone through the various case laws quoted by the learned Counsel. We find that the facts in those cases particularly commodity, process and use are very different and are distinguishable from the facts in the present case. We do not consider it necessary to discuss each of these cases. 5.2 The next issue raised by the appellant is that extended period is not invokable. We find that the argument of the appellant is that the ....