TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 479
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not eligible for the reason that the processes undertaken by the appellant, which is merely cutting and slitting of sheets / coils as per customers specifications does not amount to manufacture. Show cause notice was issued proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit along with interest and also for imposing penalties. Demand of duty on the finished goods was also raised for which the duty was discharged utilizing the credit availed. After due process of law, the Commissioner confirmed the demand, interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri V. Ravindran submitted that the period involved is from 10/2006 to 11/2006. He submitted that the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that CRGO laminations shall amount to manufacture. He submitted that the adjudicating authority has relied upon Board's Circular No. 584/21/2001-CX dated 7.9.2001 and the later clarification issued by the Board in Circular No. 211/08/2005-CX dated 2.3.2005 wherein the Board clarified that the process of slitting of coils does not amount to manufacture. The ld. counsel has submitted that the slit coils when used for electrical lamination purposes, the process involved amounts to manufacture and this aspect has not been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Faridabad Iron and Steel Traders Association Vs. Union of India reported in 2004 (178) ELT 1099 (Del.) which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the decisions rendered by the High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging that the process does not amount to manufacture and therefore the appellants are not eligible for credit. The ld. counsel has argued that the jurisdictional High Court in the appellant's own case under Income Tax law wherein it was held that the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture and therefore they are eligible for the deduction under Income Tax Act. However, the Board Circular No. 211/08/2005 dated 2.3.2005 has clarified that the activity does not amount to manufacture. This clarification is pursuant to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision. In the present case, without entering into the controversy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....constitutes manufacture. Admittedly, the assessee had carried on additional activities such as pickling and oiling on the decoiled HR/CR coils, which is a complex technical process involving huge investment in plant and machinery. Since these additional activities were not considered by the Board in its Circular dated 7th September, 2001, the withdrawal of the said Circular cannot be a ground to hold that the activity carried on by the assessee did not constitute manufacturing activity. It is only on 24th June, 2010, the Board has issued a Circular to the effect that the process of pickling does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, during the relevant period, that is, during the period from 2nd March, 2005 to 31st December, 2005, it could ....