TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1985. The appellant availed CENVAT Credit on inputs purchased within India on the basis of invoices and also on inputs imported on the basis of Bills-of-Entry. They also availed CENVAT Credit on capital goods. The finished goods, mainly, Mono-sodium Glutamate, are cleared to domestic market on payment of duty. On perusal of records, it was found that the appellant have cleared inputs as such to 100% EOUs under ARES-3s without payment of duty, on the basis of CT-3 certificates. 2. The Department was of the view that in order to be eligible for exemption from payment of duty, when the goods are cleared to 100% EOU, the inputs should be used to manufacture finished goods at the factory of the appellant. The inputs having been cleared as su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacture'; the demand was wholly set aside vide Order-in-Appeal No. 10-12/2013 (M-IV) dated 30.01.2013 6.3 It is argued by the Ld. Counsel that the Department, having taken a view that the activity of the appellant in doing re-packing and re-labelling the inputs, amounts to manufacture, ought not to have taken a different view for the disputed period. To support this contention, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai v. Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. [2014 (368) I.T.R. 577 (Mad.)] It is submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the said case observed that the Department while interpreting the very same facts cannot take a different view unless there is change of law or change of fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e arguments put forward by the appellant that the activity amounted to manufacture and that inputs are not cleared as such to the 100% EOU. In such remand proceedings, on the basis of the facts, the original authority vide Order-in-Original No. 10/2019 dated 29.03.2019 allowed the claim of the appellant to set aside the duty demand, except for an amount of Rs.96,694/-. The said demand was confirmed only for the reason that the appellant therein had failed to bring out documents that the inputs were not cleared as such. 6.5 The Ld. Counsel adverted to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned order to submit that the appellant has re-packed and re-labelled the inputs procured and then cleared to the 100% EOUs. Though the authorities below have n....