TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as upheld the Order-in-Original No. 01/HHK-01/TH-I/2011 dated 27.01.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane- I holding as follows:- "33. In the light of the above findings, I pass the order as follows: (i) I confirm the demand of the wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat Credit of Rs. 14,86,433/-(Rupees fourteen lakhs eighty six thousands four hundred and thirty three only) during the period from August 2005 to September 2008 and order its recovery from M/s. Lenxess India Pvt. Ltd., Block No.K, Gala No. 4 &5 Rajlaxmi commercial Complex Thane, Bhiwandi Road, Bhiwandi 421 3021; under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; (ii) I order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled to any Cenvat credit in respect of these goods. 2.3 For denial of Cenvat credit, a show cause notice dated 13.05.2010 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why:- a) the wrongly availed and utilized Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 14,86,433/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Three only) should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act 1944, read with Rule 14 of Credit Rules 2004 b) interest at the appropriate rate should not be recovered from them under the provisions of Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act 1944 c) penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. [2018 (9) TMI 122-CESTAT Mumbai] • The Standard Chemical Co. Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (11) TMI 1262-CESTAT Mumbai] • Gee Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 957-CESTAT Mumbai] • The entire exercise is revenue neutral and the entire demand is time barred. No penalty and interest can be imposed on them. 3.3 Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 For upholding the order-in-original, Commissioner (Appeals) has in the impugned order held as follows:- "The issues in the appeal is, as to whether the appellant are eligible to avail Cenvat cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew and different commercial product comes into existence during the course of their activity of repacking & for the goods of the Chapter 39 & 40. Therefore, the said process/activity does not fall under the definition of the "manufacture", in terms of the Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the case of CCE. Mumbai v/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd.,- 2005(188) ELT.464(SC), it was held that- 8. The respondents import items classifiable under Chapter 18 and Chapter 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act). The issue is whether Note 3 to Chapter 18 and Note 3 to Chapter 19 which extend the meaning of manufacture by legal fiction to the labelling or relabeling of containers and repa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture in both the periods (ie prior to 1997 and after 1997). With these observations, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief. From the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the process carried out by the appellants did not fall under the definition of the "manufacture", in terms of the Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, therefore the appellant was not entitled for availing the Cenvat credit as per rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It has been contested by the appellant that there is revenue neutrality in their case as they availed Cenvat credit and reversed the same at the time of clearance of the said products. In this regard, the Centr....