TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a view that the process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and as such, the cenvat credit availed by them is recoverable under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by issuing notice dated 29.08.2011 which resulted in the order dated 23.07.2012. By this order, the ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of cenvat credit availed by the appellant during the period 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and imposed equal penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules and also further penalty under Rule 26(2) and 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is before us. 2. Ld. Counsel, Shri Ashwani Sharma summarized the appellants plea as below:- (a) The pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case that the process undertaken by them amounts to manufacture because of the various processes involved and resultant product being entirely different in use and quality. (b) Ld. Counsel for the appellant further relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (232) ELT 479 (Tribunal-Delhi) and Markwell Paper Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida - 2010 (262) ELT 579 (Tribunal-Delhi). (c) Ld. Counsel further submitted that even if it is assumed that the process undertaken by them does not amount to manufacture it is a fact that they have paid duty on the final products which is much higher than the credit taken on inputs. The credit taken on inputs have been used towards such payment. In such situation,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sides and examined the appeal records.The point for decision is whether or not the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture for central excise purpose and if not, the utilized ineligible credit for the payment of final product can be subjected to recovery again. The Original Authority relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metelex (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), more specifically, para-15 of the said order, to hold that the process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. He also held that Chapter Note-16 of Chapter 39 of CET was added w.e.f. 1.3.2008 and as such, the process does not amount to manufacture prior to 1.3.2008. He concluded that no new distinct product comes into existent as a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Markwell Paper Plast Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (285) ELT 76 (Tribunal-Delhi) and many other similar cases held that the process of laminating /metalizing of duty paid film used for packaging purposes is to be treated as manufacture as per Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Metlax (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was mainly on the ground that the Department had failed to discharge their burden of proving that the process undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture. We find that the Tribunal in various subsequent cases, as mentioned above, distinguished the application of the said order of the Hon'ble Apex Court on analysis of the facts. Accordin....