AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assifiable under Chapter 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The appellant was awarded a contract for manufacture of the said goods by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, involving the construction of Railway Line/ Track in the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor (WDFC) between Rewari to Haryana. The appellant claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (Sl. 186), to clear the goods without payment of duty. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide communication dated 22.12.2014, directed that the appellant is not eligible for exemption benefit for the reasons that the goods produced by it are not meant for use in the site of manufacture and the appellant would clear the goods on payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant submitted that the appellant paid the duty as per direction of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 22.12.2014. It is submitted that the department had taken a view that the goods were not exempted and therefore, Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be invoked. It is further submitted that the appellant paid the duty as per direction of the department and availed Cenvat Credit and therefore, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied as the duty was not refunded to them. In support of above submissions, the Learned Advocate has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CCE, Pune-III Vs. Ajinkya Enterprises - 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.) and also the decisions of this Tribunal, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 22.12.2014 informed that as per Explanation of the Entry Serial No. 186 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE, the goods manufactured at site of construction must be used in construction at such site. But the goods manufactured by the appellants are not to be used at the site of manufacture and therefore, exemption benefit is not available and directed the appellant to clear the goods on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. The appellant obtained Central Excise Registration from the jurisdictional Range Officer and cleared the goods on payment of duty. The appellant vide letter dated 08.04.2015, again approached the Assistant Commissioner to allow the clearance of the goods as per exemption notification. There are several correspondenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conditions of Para 2.2 of the said Circular dated 06.07.2016. Thereafter, the appellant started clearance the goods manufactured at site for use in the Project, without payment of duty, by availing the benefit of the exemption notification. 8. The Commissioner of Central Excise issued a Show Cause Notice dated 02.01.2017, alleging that the appellant was entitled to take benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (Sl. No.186) unconditionally since inception of their manufacturing process on clearance of Sleeper manufactured by them for supply in the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor (WDFC) Project. Since, the exemption was available unconditionally, thus, the appellant is not entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit as per Rule 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent on the face of record that the department directed the appellant to take registration and to pay the duty and also refused to grant exemption benefit. In this event, the findings of the Commissioner that the appellant was entitled to avail the benefit of exemption is not tenable, as it is altogether against evidence. The Order made in conscious violation of pleadings and law is a perverse Order, which is exactly happened in the present case and thus, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. The another aspect of this matter is that the Cenvat Credit is denied for contravention of Rule 6(1) and 6(4) of Rules 2004. Rule 6 provides obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods. Rule 6(1) says that the CENVAT Cred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacture. 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 not be said tha....