TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8.03.16 12/2015-16 dated 26.10.15 24-25/2014-15 dated 25.02.15 29-33/2014-15 dated 25.03.15 SCNs dated 04.02.04 30.12.14 23.12.05 & 29.11.06 03.07.07, 28.01.08, 24.09.08, 23.03.09 & 14.12.09 Period of dispute April 1998 to December 2003 January 2004 to November 2004 December 2004 to September 2006 October 2006 to September 2009 Duty demand Rs.2,22,62,155/- Rs.86,79,187/- Rs.1,71,02,273/- Rs.59,20,856/- Cenvat credit allowed Rs.67,84,317/- Rs.12,77,903/- Rs.48,55,524/- Rs.9,17,624/- Issue The main issue relates to whether the activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture or not. Further, the issue also relates to the classification of goods in question and invocati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the frames of different materials and the only activity performed is of affixing the said plates within the said frames. The said activity is denied to be manufacture. In alternative, it is mentioned that otherwise also, the impugned goods is the one as is classifiable under Chapter 4901 where the excise duty is nil. Ld. Counsel also brought to the notice about the previous order of Tribunal in the case C.C.E, Delhi Vs. Taneja Mines Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (257) ELT 471 wherein the impugned activity has been held as manufacture. The products in hand are held to have been excisable. Being aggrieved, Appeal was referred to Hon'ble Apex Court against the said decision. It is mentioned that same stands admitted vide the order dated 18.04.2011. The stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocessing and trading of following items:- (i) Framed pictures, certificates & momentous.. under the brand name divinity. (ii) Desktop clocks. (iii) Other gift articles 9. Initially a SCN dated 04.02.2004 for April 1998 to December 2003 alleging the processing/trading activity of appellant as manufacture under section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and a subsequent notice dated 30.12.2004 for the subsequent period January 2004 to November 2004 were issued. Both of these SCNs were adjudicated vide a common Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2005 confirming the activity to be that of manufacture for framed pictures and Desktop cloks (as above). However, framed pictures were classified under 4901 will NIL duty. Thus, demand thereof w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re this Tribunal. Hence, the argument of Department that these two Appeals are not maintainable is not acceptable. There two Appeals are against the subsequent adjudication based on additional data than what was the subject matter of previous adjudication, irrespective on the same Show Cause Notices. Thus, both these Appeals with remaining two appeals being for the subsequent period are maintainable. Since, the issue being common for remaining two appeals i.e. E/52128/2015 & E/53164/2015 and the fact being that the said prior two appeals on same issue have already been admitted by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is an admitted fact that no final outcome has yet come. 11. In the given circumstances, once the controversy is pending adjudication bef....