TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rourkela. 2.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the main appellant is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Coal Tar Pitch of various grades like, Dehydrated Coal Tar and by-products such as Heavy Creosote Oil, Light Creosote Oil, Napthalene etc., which attract Central Excise duty under Chapter 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The raw materials are Crude Oil Tar (partially distilled), S. M. Pitch/G.R.Pitch/M.Pitch and various grades of coal tar pitch, which are also attracted Central Excise duty. 2.2 The appellant procured their inputs maily from Public Sector Undertakings, like, SAIL, RSP, B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../c Payee Cheques. He further submits that the statement of Shri Yasobanta Behera, Manager (Accounts) and ShriPawan Kumar Choudhary, General Manager, were taken in the presence of the Police Officers. No opportunity of the crossexamination was provided in accordance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Statement of Shri Bipin Gupta, Director was also recorded. The statements were recorded in the presence of the police officers. So, the shadow of authority/police, was in the existence. Thus, the statements were not voluntarily taken. It was under the threat, coercion. 3.2 It is also the submission of the ld.Counsel that the appellant has paid more duty than credit taken. He submits that the appellant has paid excess duty of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin the inclusive definition of manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For this purpose, he relies on the ratio laid down in the following case laws : (i) Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs. CCEx.: 1994 (73) ELT 497 (SC) ; (ii) Flex Engineering Ltd. Vs. CCEx. : 2012 (276) ELT 153 (SC); (iii) Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corpn. Vs. Ram Chander : 1987 (32) ELT 231 (SC) ; (iv) CCEx., Vs. Prem Conductor : 2008 (222) ELT 145 (Tri.- Ahmd.). 3.6 According to the ld.Counsel for the appellants, "Specialized Tankers" were received in their factory as a matter of fact. In any case, they received the inputs in the "Specialized Tankers" to satisfy the test of receipt of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied the impugned order. He submits that the factory was closed. The cenvat credit was claimed falsely on the inputs. In the factory, sufficient electricity consumption was not made. The officer of the Company have stated in their statement that the factory was closed from April, 2012 to November, 2013 and from April, 2014 to 23.02.2015 and no production was made, but fact remains that the factory was opened from November, 2013 to March, 2014. It is the submission of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, that no Pollution Certificate has been obtained. No raw material was received and there was no production and clearance of the finished goods during the said period. He also explains the process of manufacturing of the final products. Accordingly to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 25.03.1986 read with Rule 4(5)(a)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellants had received the job work goods within 180 days, which fact is also evident from the record. The inputs were supplied to the job worker and the same were received back in the processed goods with such details as dates of supply, date of receipt, challan/invoice nos, vehicle no., quantity supplied, quantity received back, no. of days within which returned by job worker, which is duly certified by statutory auditor. 6. It may be mentioned that in the process of manufacture of final product of Coal Tar Pitch from Crude Coal Tar, two stages are required, namely, (i) Dehydration and (ii) Distillation. Dehydration is the process by which Crude Coal Tar is h....