TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice tax is not leviable. I don't find any force in the argument of the appellant and the case law cited by the appellant is different and is not relevant in the present case. I also find that the appellant has not presented any credible defense for not overturn the inadmissible CENVAT Credit availed on job charges as discussed above and hold that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any infirmity in the impugned orders to justify any interference, also found that the penal provisions are correctly imposed by the original authority. 5.2 Further, I find that the appellant are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit in terms of the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of capital goods, inputs and input services received in the factory for use in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, it was found that the respondent had shown income from 'job charges', from January 2016 to April 2016, job worked goods if cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not require service tax, since the same falls under 'negative list of services'. As input services were being used in the Job-Work, the respondents were required to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/- (Rs. Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six only) wrongly availed by the party and confirm the demand of the same and order for recovery of the said amount of credit from the party under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act,. (ii) I also confirm the demand of the interest & order for recovery of the same from the party at the appropriate rate as applicable on the aforesaid confirmed demand of Rs.14,29,376/-, under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AA of the Central excise Act, 1944; and (iii) I impose penalty of Rs.14,29,376/- (Rs. Fourteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six only) upon M/s Goodluck India Limited (formerly GOOD LUCK STEEL TUBES LIMITED), A-42 & 45, Industrial Area, Sikandrabd-203205 Distt. Bulandshahr (U.P.) under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for contravention of the provisions of said Law as discussed supra. I direct the party to pay the dues, as above, forthwith." 2.5 Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing order: "Revenue is aggrieved against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal‟) whereby and where under the Tribunal has reversed the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise holding that the process followed by the Revenue from the issue of show cause notice to the determination of the liability is not based on relevant law. 2. M/s. MDS Switchgear Ltd., D-4, MIDC, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee‟) and M/s. MDS Switchgear Ltd., A-2, MIDC, Malegaon Village, Sinnar (hereinafter referred to as "the supplier‟) are the sister concerns and are engaged in the manufacture of circuit-breakers falling under Chapter Heading No. 85 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing of Modvat facility under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, "the Rules‟) 3. The assessee was receiving "tripstar MCB‟s single pole‟ of various configurations from their unit at Sinnar in semi- finished condition. After carrying out certain operation, they have cleared the goods at lower value than the landing cost of semifinished received from their u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charged the Jalgaon unit with under-invoicing of their product. That has also not been done. The valuation as given by the Sinnar unit was duly approved by the department and the payment of duty was also duly accepted. We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the duty so paid into "deposit of duty‟. There is no legal basis for such presumption. The rules entitled the receipt manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer. A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit [2000 (38) RLT 179]." 8. Counsel appearing for the Revenue could not assail any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. 9. That being the position, we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. " (b) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dealing with the identical issue in the case of Creative Enterprises (Supra) passed the following order: "Originally when the appeal was filed, the following question wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 in bulk packs from Dr. Bex & Co. (I) Ltd. and with the help of special purpose machines prepared small marketable packages and cleared the same on payment of duty under cover of invoice. The department had granted the C.Ex., registration to the appellant. In the present case, I find that the appellant had received the goods in bulk, carried out testing/ inspection, packed in smaller containers with automatic machinery, followed the rules and procedure strictly and cleared the goods on payment of duty. The expression "manufacturer‟ has been defined in Section 2(f) of the C. Ex. Act, 1944, according to which it includes any process- (i) Incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product, and (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section of Chapter Notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture. The aforesaid definition endows a wider content to the expression "manufacture‟ as several process which would not ordinarily be understood as amounting to manufacture are specifically included therein, held by the Apex Court in the cases of Prestige Engg. (I) Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 497 (S.C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it taken. If the credit taken was not eligible, what was required was only to adjust the duty paid against that credit." 5. It is necessary to take note of the fact, to complete narration of facts, that the earlier order of Tribunal was challenged by way of Tax Appeal Stamp No. 815 of 2004 which came to be disposed of on 20-7-2004 for non-removal of office objections. Till date, no steps have been taken to have the said appeal restored to file. 6. When one goes through the order of the first appellate authority, it is apparent that the respondent has been held to be a manufacturer as defined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority has taken into consideration the activities carried on by the respondent- assessee. The Tribunal is justified in holding that if the activity of the respondent-assessee does not amount to manufacture there can be no question of levy of duty, and if duty is levied, Modvat credit cannot be denied by holding that there is no manufacture. 7. In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case in light of concurrent findings of fact recorded after appreciating the evidence on record by both Commissioner (Appeals) ....