TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 937
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion which was cleared on payment of duty. They were also preparing Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB). While there is no dispute on payment of duty on Bitumin Emulsion, the dutiability of the product PMB was in dispute and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the process does not amount to manufacture in the case of Osnar Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (276) ELT 162 (SC). The appellant was availing cenvat credit on input and input services which were common to both products. The department was of the view that since the product PMB was not a manufactured product, there is no need to pay the duty on the same. But a view was taken that the appellant had wrongly availed the cenvat credit on input and input services attributable to this product. Further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... background, we heard Sh. S.S. Gupta, Ld. C.A. for the appellant and Sh. H. C. Saini, ld. AR for the department. 3. Sh. S. S. Gupta, ld. CA submitted that during the period September 2012 to November, 2012, the appellant already paid tax amounting to Rs. 60,89,453/- on the product PMB, hence, he submitted that during the above period there was no need to reverse the cenvat credit availed which already stands reversed by payment of above duty. So, he submitted that the above amount may be taken as paid towards overall demand for reversal. With reference to the denial of credit balance transferred at the time of merger of M/s TVBILP by the appellant, he submitted that the stipulation in Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules requiring the permis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he submitted that there is a need for reversal inspite of paying the tax. With reference to the denial of credit on merger, he submitted that Rule 10(3) requires the appellant to satisfy certain conditions. It has not been verified whether such conditions already stand satisfied and hence the credit on merger has been denied by the adjudicating authority. Ld. AR for the department further submitted that the product PMB has been held as not manufactured. Consequently, it stands in a footing different from manufacture of exempted product which comes within the ambit of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Hence, he submitted that credit of input and input services attributable to this product should not have been taken by the appellant an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants are right in their contention that the finding regarding manufacture applies equally to levy of duty as well as eligibility to Modvat credit. It there was no manufacture, there could be no payment of duty also. There is no dispute that the appellants had paid a higher amount of duty on the goods than the credit taken. If the credit taken was not eligible, what was required was only to adjust the duty paid against that credit". 7. The another grievance of the appellant is with reference to the denial of credit at the time of merger of M/s TVBILP with the appellant. The only ground raised in the show cause notice is that the permission of the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner was not taken as required under Rule 10(3) of the Cenvat Cr....