TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012). 3. It was observed in audit that the assessee received the various aromatic solvents, under the brand names Garosol, Garomasol, Garomax and Garlas in bulk quantities from their sister unit located at Ankleshwar, as also other manufacturers including Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited. The show cause notice alleges that the repacking of the goods from bulk to small packs in drums/barrels to cater to the requirement of the industrial consumers does not amount to manufacture and therefore no credit on inputs utilized is available to the assessee, who have however availed the said credit and therefore the same is recoverable in law with interest due thereon. The appellant's case is that they carried out the processes of filtration, acid treatment, blending and mixing as per customer needs and specifications at their factory. The show cause notice alleges that there is no change in the nomenclature/nature of the finished goods, said to be manufactured and removed from their factory. In short it is the case of the revenue that as no/new separate commodity emerges as a result of repacking of the said goods into smaller drums/barrels they are not eligible for availment of credit on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manufacturing process undertaken by the appellant and the nature of the test reports of the finished goods : 6. The specifics of the cause to be shown, as enumerated in the show cause notice dated 26 April, 2013 issued to the appellant are as under: "14. The said assessee is therefore required to show cause to....................... (1) Cenvat Credit totaling to Rs. 4,39,41.435/- [ Rs. 4,26,60,693/- (Cenvat) + Rs. 8,54.272/- (Education Cess) + Rs. 4,26,470/- (Secondary and Higher Education Cess)] irregularly availed by the said assessee during the period from F.Y. 2008-09 to 2012-13 (upto December 2012), should not be demanded and recovered from them in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with the erstwhile proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [now incorporated in Section 11A(4) of the said Act] (2) Interest at the appropriate rate on the quantum of irregularly availed Cenvat Credit as detailed above, should not be demanded and recovered from them in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 2004, read with the erstwhile Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [now incorporated in Section 11AA of the said Act a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se circumstances, the question of suppression of facts would not arise and therefore the demand was barred by limitation. 8.1. As for the merits of the case, they plead that they maintained the records of production and clearance of the goods in and from their factory, under proper Central Excise Invoices mentioning the name of the product Aromatic Solvent having brand names Garosol, Garmasol, Garomax and Garias etc. and classifiable under sub-heading No. 27075000/27073000/27079900. The contend that they submitted the monthly ER-I Returns to the Central Excise authorities showing the production of goods in their factory and the clearance of the same under cover of their Central Excise invoices, suppressing nothing from the Department and the question of suppression of fact cannot arise. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the processes undertaken in their factory was also examined earlier by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Howrah North Division-II and as per requirement of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, they submitted the manufacturing processes of their final products to him vide their letter dated 25.08.08. In the said letter, they mentioned, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty on such products since 2001. At no point of time, any dispute had been raised by the Department. 8.3. The appellant referring to the audit observations pertaining to F.Y. 2003-04 and 2006-07 forwarded on 20.02.08 submits that vide their letters dated 25.01.08 and 16.04.08 this issue of "input credit" and "process of manufacture" was discussed at length and was duly accepted by the Department and the Audit authorities. The said question was raised again on 23.07.2009, when in response vide their letter dated 25.01.08 stated that the activities they had been carrying out amounted to 'manufacture' and they were paying duty on the finished goods and availing credit on the inputs. That there was furthermore no irregularity as the case was revenue neutral. The stand taken by audit was also contrary to the earlier stand taken by audit and hence the observation was not proper. 9. In view of the above it is evident that the dispute as to whether the processes undertaken the appellant at their factory, amounted to manufacture or not, was well within the knowledge of the Department, as early as in 2008 and multiple queries have been shown to be made by audit. Each time the app....