TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s by welding. For this purpose, they received the duty paid MS poles. The unit -I is the older unit which had started manufacturing operations earlier and unit II had started manufacturing operations sometime in 2006. Unit I had obtained Central Excise Registration and was availing Notification No.56/2002-CE i.e paying duty on the finished products to the extent possible through cenvat credit available at the end of the month and if any duty was still required to be paid, the same was paid through PLA and this duty paid through PLA was refundable under this notification. 2. The Apex Court by judgement delivered on 27th March, 2006 in the case of Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. CCE, Kolkata reported in 2006 (196) ELT 400 (S.C.) held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from July, 2012 to June, 2013. The SCN relied upon the Tribunal's judgement in the case of CCE, Jammu & Kashmir vs. North Sun Enterprises Industrial Estate reported in 2012 (284) ELT 75 (Tri.Del.) wherein relying upon the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Prachi Industries (Supra), it has been held that joining of pipes one with other of different diameters by welding to obtain a pole of the desired length would amount to manufacture. The SCN was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 15.05.2014 by which he confirmed the above mentioned duty demand alongwith interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,05,648/- on them. Besides this he also held that the appellant would be eligible for input duty cenvat credit. Against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f two units of the same assessee, that the appellant have strong prima-facie case in their favour and hence the requirement of pre-deposit of the duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed. 7. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the ld. DR Defended the impugned order by reiterating findings of the Commissioner and pleaded that the appellant's activity would amount to manufacture in view of the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Prachi Industries (supra), that in para 20 of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Prachi Industries, its earlier judgement in the case of Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. CCE, Kolkata (Supra) has been distinguished, that the duty demand for the period from Jul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 had been passed by the Additional Commissioner after the Apex Court's judgment dated 28.03.2008 in the case of Prachi Industries (supra) wherein the Apex Court after distinguishing its earlier judgement in the case of Hindustan Poles Corporation, had taken a contrary view holding that joining of duty paid MS pipes of different diameters by welding and swaging would amount to manufacture. 10. In view of Apex Court's judgment in the case of Prachi Industries (supra) which holds the field at present, the appellants activity would amount to manufacture and there is no dispute that the duty demand of Rs. 34,57,913/- is within time. The Commissioner while confirming the duty demand in the impugned order has also allowed the cenvat credit wh....