TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate for Appellants Shri Mohammad Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa As per facts on record, appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing the facility of Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 47,79,132/- and Rs. 7,14,619/- respectively. The said show cause notices were contested by the appellant on merits as also on limitation. However, the Original Adjudicating Authority did not find favour with the appellants submissions on both the counts and confirmed the demand of Rs. 54,93,751/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount. In addition, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks does not amounts to manufacture. However, it is not being disputed by the revenue that the smaller packs were being cleared by the appellant on payment of duty, by treating the same as manufactured goods. 4. Tribunal in the case of M/s Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi-III reported at 2015 (317) ELT 538 (Tri.-Del.), by majority order has observed that even if the activity undertaken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Excise. To the same effect is decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABS Steel Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported at 2017 (347) ELT 642 (Tri.-Del.). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs Ajinkya Enterprises 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.) as also the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs Creative Enterprise....