TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of duty. It was noticed by the lower authorities that the activity undertaken by the assessee by classifying the product under Tariff Item No. 72083940 and discharge duty is incorrect in so far as the process undertaken by the assessee was not a manufacturing process. Show-cause notices were issued and in one of the show-cause notices, extended period was invoked alleging that the assessee had not undertaken any process of manufacturing on the inputs received by them and hence were ineligible to avail CENVAT credit, as final products cleared by them were not manufactured and CBEC vide Circular No. 927/17/2010-CX dated 24.06.2010 has also clarified that mere undertaking the process of oiling and pickling as preparatory steps do not amount to manufacture. The said show-cause notices directed the assessee to show cause as to why CENVAT credit should not be denied to them and be demanded from them with interest and also for imposition of penalties. The assessee contested the show-cause notices on merits and also on limitation. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law, did not agree with the contentions raised by the assessee and confirmed the demands post 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in appeal by Revenue to the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the said appeal was dismissed by a speaking order as reported in 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.). He would also submit that the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court has been accepted by the Revenue as is recorded in one of the order-in-original wherein the Pune III Commissionerate vide their letter No. P-III/LC-26/Rev.Status/2012 dated 10.08.2012 has accepted the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and no appeal has been filed. He also relied upon the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of Foam Techniques Mfg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (317) ELT 266 (Tri. Mum) which is on the same issue. It is his further submission that in the impugned order the adjudicating authority has recorded the findings that the amount paid by the assessee should be considered as an amount paid under Section 11D is also incorrect as the said amount which has been paid by the assessee is in the form of duty on duty paying documents and debited in the relevant Central Excise records as also PLA, hence cannot be considered as payment under Section 11(D) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For this proposition he relies upon the judgement of the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereafter insist the goods were inputs and were eligible for CENVAT credit; submits that the case in hand when the process itself does not amount to manufacture, then the products that are cleared are not manufactured products. He would also rely upon the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Ahmedabad v. Inductotherm (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (283) ELT 359 (Guj.) for the proposition that when there is no manufacturing activity undertaken, goods removed as such were not excisable and assessee could not have collected any charge from the purchaser in the form of excise duty. He would also rely upon the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (281) ELT 692 (Raj.) for the proposition that cutting and polishing of granite and marble slabs does not amount to manufacture and plea that it was manufactured is incorrect. He would also further submit that the Apex Court in the case of Ratan Melting & Wire Industries - 2008 (231) ELT 22 (S.C.) has clearly settled the law that the department's clarification which is issued needs to be followed by the assessee and is binding on the departmental authorities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drawn on 2-3-2005. Thereafter, the appellants sought clarification through various letters to the department to clarify whether the composite activity of de-coiling of HR/CR coils, cutting and slitting into specific sizes and thereafter pickling and oiling amounting to manufacture or not. That was clarified only on 24-6-2010. In the case of Resistance Alloys (supra) and P.V. Sanghvi (supra), wherein it was held that process of pickling and oiling would not amount to manufacture, but in the case in hand before us, the appellants were undertaking composite activity of de-coiling of HR/CR coils thereafter cutting and slitting into specific sizes and after that pickling and oiling taken place, which was clarified by the department only on 24-6-2010 saying that the said activity does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, following instructions issued through Circular No. 911/1/2010-CX., dated 14-1-2010, the appellants approached to the Commissioner for issuance of appropriate rectification for regularization of the CENVAT credit availed as their activity does not amount to manufacture and they have paid duty on clearance of the goods more than the credit availed. The Commissioner has al....