TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat confirming duty demands and imposing penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder. 1.1 The facts in brief are that following trading concerns namely: a) M/s. Shree Hari Traders, prop: Shri Hari Krishna Parikh b) M/s. Shree Hari Enterprises, Prop: Late Shree Suresh Chadra Parikh c) M/s. Shree Narayan Munee Dev Entp, Prop: Karta Hari Krishna Parikh are engaged in trading of duplex paper board. The Trading Concerns purchase non-corrugated paper board from dealers of manufacturers and in some cases directly from manufacturers. The customer places order for purchase of paper board on the Trading Concerns. The Trading Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he products in question as Sheet only, case of the department is that these are not sheets but "Boxes" cleared in sheet form for ease of transportation and same can be converted into box by the customer for packing of sarees or any other dress material. 1.4 in view of the above department is of the view that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Boxes as a complete duplex box. Hence, liable to duty under the classification Tariff item 4819 20 20/ 4819 20 90 of the First Schedule the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, therefore the present appeals as detailed below are filed by the appellant:- Appeal No. Name of the Client Duty Rs. Penalty Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. 2.1. He further submits that the entire case made on the basis of clubbing of clearances of three different units which is absurd and perverse. All three trading concerned are independent and working of their own without any mutual interest in each other. Therefore, the clubbing of clearances of all the three units is incorrect. He made various submissions and placed reliance on the following judgments:- • Grasim Industries Vs. UOI 2011 (273) ELT 10 (SC) • Maruti Suzuki Vs. CCE 2015 (318) ELT 353 (SC) • Metlex Vs. CCE 2004 (165) ELT 129 (SC) • Shyam Oil Cakes Vs. CCE 2004 (174) ELT 145 (SC) • Dunlop India Vs. UOI 1983 (13) ELT 1566 (SC) • Reliance Textile I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 3. Shri Tara Praksah, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant have mala fide intention as they have declared the goods in the invoice as sheets whereas the goods cleared under gone various process of Lamination, Punching, holding and the same is ready to use as a Duplex box for packing of sarees or any other dress material. Therefore, by mis-declaring the goods they tried to mislead the department therefore, demand was rightly confirmed against them. He further submits that there is a clear mala fide intention on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the demand for extended period is also sustainable. 4. We have carefully consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the root cause of this case is demand of Excuse duty assuming that the activity under taken by the appellant are manufacture, however, the adjudicating authority has not properly examined the overall activity of the appellant, process and whether a different goods emerged after carrying out the said activity. Therefore, without proper examination of the process and the emergence of distinct commodity the demand of Excise duty considering the activities as manufacture cannot be sustainable. Therefore, on the aspects of manufacture the matter needs to be re-examined by adjudicating authority. 4.2 As regard the issue of Cenvat credit, we find that the adjudicating authority has denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices on wh....