2017 (8) TMI 1172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioner seeks for a direction upon the second respondent to dispose of the Rebate Application, after finally adjudicating the Show Cause Notices issued to the petitioner, in the light of the decision of the CESTAT dated 15.05.2017. The respondent issued show cause notices to the petitioner dated 03.10.2012, 10.10.2012, 26.04.2013, 28.06.2013 and 29.01.2014. The contents which are identical, in the sense that, the respondent proposed that the process undertaken by the petitioner, having been found to be not involving in an activity of manufacture, within the meaning of Section 2(f)(iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the goods, being not processed in the factory, which does not amount to manufacture, as per section 2(f)(iii) of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he activities under taken by the petitioner amounts to manufacture and they are liable to avail CENVAT credit on the inputs/input services used in the export of goods. Thus the impugned order before the Tribunal, demanding to recover/reversal of the credit was held to be unjustified and was accordingly set aside. 7. On obtaining the copy of the order passed by the CESTAT, the petitioner addressed the adjudicating authority by way of a representation/additional reply dated 28.06.2017. In the said reply, which dealt with all the 15 Show Cause Notices, the petitioner stated that they were issued a notice dated 24.07.2012 seeking reversal of credit availed on inputs used for manufacture of CKD kits (Completely Knocked Down). On the ground that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nue merits consideration, as it is not known whether the department intends to prefer an appeal, as against the order passed by the CESTAT. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, unless and until, the department files an appeal before this Court and obtains an order of interim stay, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits, which flow from the order passed by the CESTAT. In any event, the petitioner cannot be keep guessing and they should know as to where they stand. This Court is not inclined to issue any positive direction at this juncture for more than one reason. 11. Firstly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself and secondly it is not known whether any appeal is being pref....