TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri M.S. Mittal and Abhijit Biswas, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : D.N. Patel, J]. - In this Tax Appeal, following substantial question of law has been raised : - "Whether the Tata Ryerson Ltd. (assessee), who ceases to be manufacturer of excisable goods under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 2-3-2005 in view of Board's Circular No. 811/8/2005-CX, dated 2-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court that conversion from the raw material purchased from Tata Steel by the respondent and thereafter preparing HR Coils by cutting, slitting and strengthening of HR Coils into sheets does not amount to manufacture as per Section 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The decision rendered by this Court is in Tax Appeal No. 21 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2007 with Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, therefore, notice was issued upon the respondent and ultimately the notice was adjudicated upon and the respondent was held liable for and Cenvat credit was disallowed which was availed upon the exempted goods by the respondent and the duty paid upon the exempted goods were appropriated under Section 11(d) of the Central Excise Act. Penalty was also imposed at Rs. 2,75,55,215.44 upon the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., slitting and strengthening of HR Coils purchased from Tata Steel as held by this Court in Tax Appeal Nos. 21, 22 and 23 all of the year 2007, vide order dated 22nd August, 2016. 5. It further appears from the facts of the case that the respondent has paid the duty of Rs. 11,30,37,130.64 upon the HR Coils. As stated by the counsel for the respondent, they have never claimed the refund of th....