TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal was upheld and rejected appeal of the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant are manufacturer of Snuff of Tobacco falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing the Cenvat Credit on inputs, Capital goods & Inputs services. On scrutiny of records of the appellant it was noticed that, during the period November 2007 to October 2008 the appellant had availed and utilized Cenvat Credit of Rs. 1,34,374/- on flexible laminated film purchased from M/s. Packotech Industries, Saifabad, Haryana. It has been observed that the process of lamination carried out by the supplier did not amount to manufacture till 1/3/2008. Thus Central Excise duty paid on goods which does not amount to manufac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-assessment in such situation at the appellants hand it cannot be said that duty paid by the manufacturer supplier is not duty hence credit is admissible. He further submits that assessment and aspect of manufacture at manufacturer suppliers end has not been challenged or by the Jurisdictional Central Excise authority of the supplier therefore activity which bonafidely treated as manufacture and payment of excise duty thereon attained finality and without any modification in such assessment on the part of the appellant Cenvat credit benefit cannot be disputed. Even in normal course it is not provided in law to ascertain dutiability of the supplier at the end of the recipient of the input otherwise. On every receipt of input at the end of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x. Rajkot Vs. Advance Diesel Engines Pvt Ltd[2012(278) ELT 491(Tri. Ahmd.)]. He also submits that this Tribunal in case of Commr. of C. Ex. Hyderabad Vs. Deepthi Formulations Pvt. Ltd. [2012(286) ELT 396 (Tri. Bang)] held that Cenvat credit is allowed notwithstanding excisibility of the inputs at the suppliers end. It was held that in the judgment that so long supplier paid duty and issue valid invoices, inputs were received in the assesses factory was used in or in relation to the manufacture their final product and it is duty paid character evidence by the invoices, assessee is entitle to take Cenvat credit on duty paid inputs. Question whether input had arising out of process of manufacture is irr-releanvat. The relevant question is whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I do not agree with contention of the Revenue for the reason that in present case it is not mere lamination whereas input received by the appellant is packaging material which used for packaging of final product by the appellant. In case of paper product Ltd. division bench categorically held that despite not exist of chapter note 16 in chapter 39 that process of lamination of duty paid film used for packaging purpose can be considered as manufacture. As per Section 2F of Central Excise Act, 1944. With this judgment there is no activity carried out by the supplier is amount to manufacture therefore the duty payment by the supplier is as per the provisions of central Excise and it cannot be said that payment is not of duty. In view of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licable on the date of removal and on the value determined under sub-section (2) of section 3 or section 4 or section 4A of the Act, as the case may be. [Explanation. - The amount paid under this sub-rule shall be allowed as CENVAT credit as if it was a duty paid by the manufacturer who removes the goods.] (3) If there is any difficulty in following the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), the assessee may receive the goods for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason and may remove the goods subsequently subject to such conditions as may be specified by the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be]. From the above Rule 16, it is very clear that taking the status of supplier, even if it ....