2018 (9) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng under Chapters 29 & 38 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They registered with the Central Excise Department vide CER No.AADCC0379GXM001. They also registered with the Service Tax vide STR No.AADCC0379GSD001. The appellant is deemed manufacturer by virtue of Chapter Note 10 to Chapters 29 & 38 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 wherein Packing & re-packing / Labelling & re-labelling amounts to manufacture. As per the said chapter note read with the provisions of Rule 2 f (iii) of Central Excise Act, 1994 the appellant is deemed manufacturer as they are undertaking labelling or re-labelling and packing or re-packing of the goods under the said Chapters. They neither have any manufacturing facility nor any plant & machinery for production....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant to M/s Solute on the ground that the said CENVAT credit is ineligible being an amount paid as Royalty charges for technical knowhow which was raised by M/s Srivilas for manufacturing final products. Show cause notice was issued for the demand / reversal of such CENVAT credit. The appellant contested the show cause notice on merits and also on limitation. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, confirmed the demands raised along with interest and imposed penalties. The appeal against such order also was rejected. 6. Learned counsel after giving overall picture of the issue involved, submitted that appellant herein has purchased the finished goods from M/s Srivilas and availed the CENVAT credit o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on royalty charges. 7. Learned departmental representative on the other hand submits that the availment of CENVAT credit of the services rendered by M/s Solute would be available only for the manufacturing of final product which was done so by M/s Srivilas. It is his submission that once finished goods are manufactured by the technology procured on payment of service charges, the question of availing CENVAT credit by the appellant does not arise as it is on records that appellant had no manufacturing capacity. It is his further submission that question of limitation raised by the appellant does not arise as appellant had tried to misdirect the queries of the department by stating that they had job wo....