2017 (3) TMI 1287

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Revenue and Mr. N. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 3. We may record that the Tribunal in the impugned order at paragraph-2 has observed thus:- "2. It is undisputed that the appellants were paying duty of excise on their final product by utilizing the CENVAT credit. As such, the question required to be decided is that irrespective of the fact that whether the activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture or not and when admittedly, the credit availed is being utilized for payment of duty of excise on the said activity, whether there would be any obligation on the part of the assessee to reverse the credit. Though the appellants have referred to various decisions of the Tribunal confirmed by the Hon'ble ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit of duty paid on HR/CR coils. It is only because, the Board, on 2nd March, 2005 has withdrawn the Circular dated 7th September, 2001, the Revenue is claiming that the activity carried on by the assessee does not amount to manufacturing activity. The question is, whether on the facts of the present case, the Revenue, based on the Circular dated 2nd March 2005, is justified in calling upon the assessee to reverse the credit or pay the amount to the extent of the credit liable to be reversed, with interest and penalty? 9. It is relevant to note that the Board in its Circular dated 7th September, 2001 had only held that the activity of cutting/slitting/of HR/CR coils into sheets or strips constitutes manufacture. Admittedly, the asses....