TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r own manufactured goods, the appellant wanted to buy the same from other parties and supply the same. In respect of such bought out goods, the appellant had submitted a letter that they would buy such goods from other manufacturers and reprocess and pack the same and clear the goods as per the Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules 2002. They made their request for such a facility on 17.12.2009. After this, they started following this procedure. Show Cause Notice was issued on 9th July 2013 on the ground that the appellants were not eligible to take CENVAT Credit for the goods received from other manufacturers since the goods are already the finished goods of the appellant. The Show Cause Notice alleged that the activity undertaken by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dispatched and sold by them to SAIL. He submits that in the entire transaction, the Department had gained Rs. 7.58 lakhs as Excise Duty payment. He submits that the Department had no qualms in accepting that the goods cleared by them to SAIL were finished goods and Excise Duty was being paid on them. But for the same goods, when they had taken the CENVAT Credit, the Department has taken the objection and issued and confirmed the present demand. He submits that the issue is no more res integra. The Ahmedabad Bench of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad versus Tapsheel Enterprises has held that if the duty paid on removal is higher than the goods which have been bought, then Cenvat under Rule 16 would be eligible. He also relies on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submits that the confirmed demand for the period December 2009 to May 2010 is liable to be set aside on account of time bar also the Learned AR reiterates the findings of the Lower Authorities. He submits that the appellant has not undertaken any activity which can be taken as amounting to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Mere quality control check and packing would not amount to manufacture. Therefore, he justifies the confirmed demand. 4. Heard both sides perused the appeal papers and other documents placed before us. We find from the statement submitted by the appellant at page 4 of their appeal paper book that for the entire period the appellant has purchased the Ferro Silicon on which Excise Duty of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to manufacture, the excise duty to be paid in accordance with the valuation provisions under Central Excise Act applicable to the manufacture of goods. As regards the contention of the lower authorities that the process even though it is not manufactured, the same should be remade, refined, reconditioned or similar process. We do not agree with this contention for the reason that firstly in the subrule (1) of Rule 16, it is provided that not only for the process of remade, refined, reconditioned but the duty paid goods can be brought into the factory for any other reason. In the facts of the present case, the appellants have brought the duty paid goods from various vendors and the same were repacked as per the requirements of export and g....