TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covering the period from July 2004 to November 2008, to M/s MEPL; 8 Show Cause Notices, covering the period December 2003 to 9.5.2008 to M/s FFC and two show cause Notices, covering the period march 2004 to July 2005, to M/s ULPL, were issued, seeking to deny refund by way of self-credit and seeking to deny CENVAT credit availed along with penalties, alleging that they passed on inadmissible CENVAT credit to other units; that they will fully included the element of freight which is admissible deduction and that they have paid duty again on the goods returned to avail undue credit, on the grounds that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt Ltd 2004 (165) ELT 129 (SC) held that laminating/metallising of duty paid film did not amount to manufacture. 2. M/s MEPL sent a representation to the Central Board of Excise & Customs drawing their attention to the process of manufacture undertaken by them; show cause notices issued to them; the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and the fact that there are many other manufacturers of the same product across the country who are paying central excise duty and are also a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e period from Nov. 2007 to June 2008, were issued to M/s MEPL on the same ground. 2.3. On an Appeal by M/s MEPL, Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 22-06-2018, set aside the order dated 07-11-2008, passed by Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the refund; Commissioner (Appeals) held that the case of M/s. Metlex India (P) Ltd is not applicable as the facts are was distinguishable and decision of the Tribunal in the case of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt Ltd 2012 (285) ELT 76 (Tri-Del) and Paper Products Ltd 2014 (304) ELT 145 (Tri-Mum) are applicable as the process of manufacture undertaken by MEPL is identical to the process involved in the above two cases. The said OIA had been accepted by Revenue. As the grievance of M/s MEPL came to be redressed in terms of order dated 22-06-2018, passed by Commissioner (Appeal), Hon'ble J&K High Court disposed of the Writ Petition; writ petitions filed by M/s First Flexipack Corporation (FFC) and M/s Ultra Laminates (P) Ltd (ULPL) were adjourned and listed for hearing on 23-05-2023. Commissioner, CGST Jammu, vide impugned order dated 25-06-2024, -Original confirmed the duty demand and denied CENVAT credit apart from demanding interest and imposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd; * The appellants had irregularly taken inadmissible refund/self-credit during the period July, 2004 to June, 2008 in contravention of provisions of the notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14-11-2002, as amended; the appellants were not entitled to take any CENVAT credit, in terms of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules as the final product is not excisable; CENVAT credit is available only when 'manufacture' takes place. 3.1. In respect of M/s MEPL, the adjudicating authority confirms the denial of self-credit of Rs. 6,45,840/- on the ground that the goods were received back by the MEPL which were cleared earlier and sold again after repacking the same; MEPL has not given any evidence to counter the allegation in show cause notice that the goods were subjected to repacking only; as self-credit was taken on the manufactured goods while clearing them for the first time, self-credit of same is not permissible as the goods which were retuned were simply packed and re-cleared. However, Commissioner holds that the allegation, that cost of transportation was included in the assessable value, during the period June 2008 to November 2009, only to avail excess self-Credit, is incorrect; sale t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supra), and holding that the process(s) undertaken by them amounts to manufacture; the said order has been accepted by Revenue. He submits that the Tribunal held, in the case of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt Ltd, that department having accepted the excise duty on the final product cannot deny CENVAT credit on the inputs used for the manufacture of the final product on such a technical plea and that the same is against the principles of equity and Justice. 6. Learned Counsel submits that the above decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal involved four parties; Revenue preferred appeal against M/s. Markwell Paper Plast Pvt Ltd before Allahabad High Court and preferred appeal against M/s Sheetal Mercantile (P) Ltd and M/s. Chawla Packaging before Delhi High Court. Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. Sheetal Mercantile (P) Ltd and in the case of Chawla Packaging before the Delhi High Court and in the case of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt Ltd before the Allahabad High Court. The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sheetal Mercantile (P) Ltd 2015 (315) ELT 540 (Del) and Allahabad High Court upheld the order of the tribunal in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of the matter has been deliberately glossed over by the adjudicating authority. 8. Learned Counsel submits that CBEC, vide circular No. 93/75/86CX.3 dated 9-10-1986, clarified, on the basis of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire Industries 1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC), that lacquered/ laminated or metallised plastic films manufactured from duty paid bare films would be liable to excise duty, notwithstanding the fact that such lacquered/ metallised or laminated films fall under the same sub-heading of CETA and that Chapter 39 being covered by Modvat Scheme, the benefit of Modvat in respect of duty paid on bare films would be available towards payment of duty on lacquered/metallised or laminated film. He submits that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly holds that the circular had become irrelevant subsequent to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Metlex (India) Ltd; it is pertinent to note that CBEC has not withdrawn the said circular. He submits that department did not cancel the registration, even though there was a proposal for cancellation or revocation of the registration certificate in 5 SCNs; during the entire period of dispute M/s MEPL had pai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to a conscious decision to accept a contrary view; such a policy would lead to confusion and places the assessee in a jeopardy. He relies on * Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (2023) 3 Centax 96 (Tri-Bom). * Birla Corporation Ltd MANU/SC/2519/2005. * Bigen Industries Ltd 2006 (197) ELT 305 (SC). * Jayaswalas Neco Ltd 2006 (195) ELT 142 (SC). * Surcoat Paints (P) Ltd 2008 (232) ELT 4 (SC). 10. Learned Counsel submits that the adjudicating authority relied upon 21 judgments which according to him followed Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Metlex (India) Pvt Ltd (Supra); the cases are in no way are applicable to the facts of the present case; adjudicating authority has not applied the ratio of the judgement of Metlex (India) Pvt Ltd itself correctly as explained above. He relies on Islamic Academy of Education and others MANU/SC/0580/2003 and Ispat Industries Ltd 2006 (202) ELT 561 (SC). 11. Learned Counsel submits that the adjudicating authority, in addition to the alleged inadmissible refund/self-credit taken, also confirmed the alleged wrongly availed and utilized the CENVAT credit, finding that since the products manufactured by the appellants were not excisabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom). * Gravita Metals 2020 (372) ELT 172 (Tri. - Chan) * Shivali Udyog (I) Ltd 2006 (204) ELT 94 (Tri.-Del) * Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) * Narayan Polyplast 2005 (179) ELT 20 (SC). 12. Learned Counsel submits that the adjudicating authority has rejected the self-credit of Rs. 6,45,840/- on the goods which were returned, re-manufactured and re-sold after payment of appropriate central excise duty; the appellants took credit in terms of Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, when the goods were brought to factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason; the appellants having remanufactured and cleared the goods again on payment of duty, are duly entitled for availing refund under the provisions of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14-11-2002. The appellants rely on Order-in-Appeal dated 27-02-2013, passed on identical issue; the order attained finality as the department did not challenge the same before the Tribunal; further, the Tribunal in the appellants' own case 2018 (364) ELT 1003 (Tri. - Chan) held that the Appellants followed the due procedure for return of goods and re-clearance. 13. Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was filed by M/s FFC; On 01-05-2023, the Government counsel stated that the grievance of the petitioners stood redressed in terms of order dated 22-06-2018 passed by Commissioner (Appeals); in view of the submissions advanced by the Government counsel, in the case of M/s MEPL, which is equally applicable to the case of FFC as the process of manufacture of MEPL and FFC are identical. He submits that the High Court clearly gave two directions to the adjudicating authority; firstly, that he shall consider the reply to the show cause notice filed by M/s FFC & M/s ULPL and secondly, the matter shall be decided purely on merit without being influenced by circular of CBEC dated 07-11-2007; by giving direction to the adjudicating authority, not to be influenced by the CBEC circular, and by implication the Supreme Court judgment in Metlex case; adjudicating authority unfortunately did not follow both the directions of the High Court; he did not consider the replies to the show cause notice in proper perspective and relied upon solely, the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Metlex (I) (P) Ltd though it was distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of Markwell Paper Plast (P) Ltd & Paper P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the impugned orders did not consider the OIA dated 22-06-2018 in the case of M/s. Montage Enterprises Pvt Ltd. (MEPL), which has not been challenged by the department; the AA has found that the said OIA dated 22.06.2018 was passed without taking cognizance of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Metlex (I) Pvt Ltd; the OIA incorrectly relied on the cases of Markwell Paper Plast Pvt Ltd, Paper Products Ltd (supra); the decision in Markwell Paper Plast ignored the specific verdict regarding non-emergence of a new product after lamination of plastic films; further, the case of Laminated Packaging (P) Ltd relied upon in Markwell case was about lamination of kraft paper, thus, distinguishable facts and circumstances; in the case in hand, there is no printing of bare or metallized or laminated plastic film, making it distinguishable from the case of Markwell Paper; in Paper Products Ltd the issue involved was manufacture of packing materials. He submits that in the following cases tribunal followed judgment in Metlex India case. * Space Laminators 2017 (347) ELT 314 (T-Del) * Garware Polyester Ltd 2011 (271) ELT 434 (T-Mum) * Kaveri Metallising & Coating Ind P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cture under Section 2(f) of CE Act 1944; MEPL accordingly discontinued payment of CE duty for the period from 21.09.2007 to 21.11.2007; they suo moto started paying duty again from 22.11.2007 onwards. 20. Learned Special Counsel submits, on the allegation that though the department had proposed revocation of Central Excise registration but no proceedings were initiated to cancel the same; that the end product-flexible plastic laminates is a commercially new and different commodity which has a different name, character and use and on their reliance on J.G. Glass Industries 1998 (97) ELT 5 (SC) and other cases and Board Tariff Advice No. 40/82, dated 15.07.1982, that each process involved in production of the said final product in their factory and the resultant product would decide whether the same is yielding into a new article with distinctive name, character and use; it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the processes of lamination of plastic films and cutting, slitting of the same into smaller rolls applied by the appellants have not resulted into any new article with distinctive name, character and use; the case of J G Glass Industries in fact helps the departments case; h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acture; Even in case of Metlex India, it was held that the tariff entry makes no distinction between ordinary film and film which is lacquered or metallized or laminated. He further relies on Tech Industries 2003 (155) ELT 209 (SC), Rishabh Velveleen 1999 (114) ELT 839 (T) and Fitrite Packers vs CCE 2006 (203) ELT 452 (T). He submits that various cases were relied upon by the appellants. He submits that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of the case; Commissioner has rightly rejected the reliance as the ratio was not applicable on facts. 23. Learned Special Counsel submits on the plea of Revenue neutrality that his ground was not raised before the Commissioner and hence, the same is not tenable before the Tribunal being an additional ground; moreover, Revenue neutrality is no ground for regularising the refund or set off illegally claimed in contravention of the relevant law. Cases relied upon by the appellants involve peculiar facts and circumstances mainly about availing of exemption vis-à-vis credit, which is not the case here; the appellants have claimed CENVAT credit on inputs used in the production of the said plastic laminated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Counsel rebuts the submission of the appellants on the demand of interest and submits that as the demand is sustainable on merit, the interest liability in terms of section 11AA or 11AB of CE Act, 1944 get automatically attracted. On the issue of denial of CENVAT credit on the goods retuned for repair etc, which were claimed to have been re-made and cleared on payment of duty that Adjudicating Authority categorically recorded that the appellants had failed to give any evidence to counter the allegations; as the goods were subjected to re-packing only, the said request was rejected correctly. Regarding the submission of M/s FFC and M/s ULPL that the show Cause Notices, issued for the periods December 2003 to January 2005 and March 2004 to January 2005, respectively are time-barred, Learned Special Counsel submits that Adjudicating Authority has dealt with this contention in the respective OIOs in a legal and proper manner. Additional Written Submissions by Learned Special Counsel 27. Shri Shyam Raj Prasad, Learned Special Counsel, for the respondent department submitted additional submissions, dated 31.7.2025, on the specific issues raised by the appellants, in the following ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances and hence, are not squarely applicable to the case on hand. He analyses each case and submits as follows. * in the case of Tikitar Industries 2012 (277) ELT 149 (SC) all the three OIA were passed on the same date 16.05.1997 and probably for this reason Apex court upheld holding the orders of the Tribunal on merit. * cases of Sambhaji Vs Gangabai & Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd relate to interpretation of statute and exemption; * the cases of Pearl Insulations Pvt Ltd and Dynaspede Integrated Systems Ltd deal with the benefit of exemption notification visà-vis conditions; * the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd - 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC) about principles of judicial discipline, which has not been flouted in this case, as the Commissioner has followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Metlex India; * the case of Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd 2023 (3) Centax 96 (T-Mum) in fact supports the case as the Tribunal held that there is no res-judicata in taxation matters and proceeded to decide the case on merits despite the fact that the department accepted OIA dated 31.01.2018. * in the case Birla Corporation Ltd MANU/SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thus, not applicable to the instant case. Counsel for the appellants Reply to departments submissions 30. Shri K. K. Anand, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted a written reply, dated 27.08.2025, in reply to the arguments advanced by the Learned Special Counsel, for the Revenue, during course of the hearing on 23.07.2025 and written submissions. He submits that Special Counsel's averment that Commissioner (Appeal) passed the order, dated 22.06.2018, without taking cognizance of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Metlex India Private Limited is incorrect; Special Counsel ignored the fact that the said decision was distinguished by tribunal in more than one case and 3 High Courts have upheld the same; he also ignored the fact that J&K High Court disposed of the petitions filed by the appellants on the assurance by GovernmentCounsel that the grievance of the appellants is mitigated by the order passed by Commissioner (Appeal). 30.1. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Special Counsel also ignored the fact that the Hon'ble J&K High Court disposed the petitions and with a direction to Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue not being influenced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uence at this stage and the verdict of the Supreme Court in Metlex holds good. Learned Counsel submits that the above submissions are wholly unsustainable as the orders passed by the Hon'ble J & K High Court were misread; as far as MEPL is concerned they had challenged the letter dated 27.11.2007 issued by the office of Superintendent of CE Range -II Jammu, directing MEPL not to pay Central Excise Duty; Hon'ble High Court vide interim order, dated 29.12.2007, had allowed MEPL to pay Central Excise Duty; M/s ULPL and M/s FFC challenged the CBEC Circular dated 07.11.2007, in which it was directed to decide all the pending cases in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in the case of Metlex India Pvt Ltd; 31.1. He submits that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of MEPL, in the case of demand for October 2007, relying upon two judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of MPPPL and PPL; in both these cases the judgment of the Hon'ble SC in the case of Metlex India Pvt Ltd was distinguished; these two judgments were upheld by three High Courts namely Delhi, Allahabad & Bombay; the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22.06....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... res-judicata or estoppel in taxation matters and relied upon a number of cases. In this regard he has placed reliance on the following judgments and according to him the department can depart from their earlier views in relation to Central Excise, Tariff entries and process of manufacture (i) If the facts are different or further and fresh facts are brought on record; or (ii) if the process of manufacture has changed (this was a central excise case); or (iii if the relevant entries in the Tariff have undergone a modification; or (iv) if, subsequent to the earlier decision, there has been a pronouncement of a High Court or the Supreme which necessitates reconsideration of the issue the earlier adjudication order was not reviewed by the department could not per se preclude them from taking contrary decision based on independent evidence and on its own merit as per legal development. 33.1. Learned Counsel submits that all the above four circumstances under which department can depart from their earlier views are conspicuous by its absence in the present appeals; department has not brought on any fresh facts on record; the process of manufacture has remained the same ; there is no ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment had accepted the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) 34. Learned Counsel submits that Learned Special Counsel did not rebut their submissions on admissibility of the CENVAT Credit; the Adjudicating Authority has denied the CENVAT Credit to all the three appellants on the ground that the processes undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture; in the cases of M/s MPPPL and M/s PPL, which they relied upon, Tribunal did not only hold that the processes undertaken by the parties therein amounted to manufacture but also allowed CENVAT Credit to the parties; these cases being on identical facts should be followed. 35. Heard both sides and perused the Records of the case. The issues before us to decide in the instant case are (i). Whether the processes undertaken by the appellants to make Plastic Laminates falling under Chapter Sub-heading No. 3920.37, 3920.38 and 3920.32 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, amount to manufacture? (ii). Whether the appellants were correct in availing the benefit of notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14-11-2002? (iii). Whether the Revenue can take a different view having accepted the Commissioner (Appeals) order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduct. 36.1. We find that the impugned orders reject the claim of the appellants on the allegation that the processes did not amount to manufacture as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Metlex (India) Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order in Original dated 7.11.2008, while rejecting the refund, claimed by, i.e. M/s Montage Enterprises(P) Ltd (one of the appellants herein), finds as follows. 3. I have carefully gone through the case records. I note that the verification/eligibility report was called for from jurisdictional Range Officer, who vide its report C. No.GL-6(58)J/RII/MEPL/Refd/06/1812 dated 26/10/2007 has confirmed that the scrutiny of the documents and the manufacturing process of the party revealed that the party is engaged in the process of Lamination of Plastic Film falling under Chapter Heading No.3920 of the Tariff. The assessee is procuring duty paid printed / unprinted / metallized /un-metallized plastic/polyester film in rolls, poly film in rolls and adhesive as their main inputs and laminate the poly film with the plastic/polyester film by applying solventless adhesive on the laminating machine. After lamination process, the material p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t analyse the processes undertaken by the appellants therein in the case of M/s Meltex (India) (P) Ltd (Supra) and have not made any attempts to compare the same with the processes involved in the impugned cases. 36.3. We find that the Revenue mainly depends on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Metlex (I) Pvt Ltd (Supra). We find that that Supreme Court observed, in that case, as follows. 15. In this case the Appellants purchase duty paid film. They merely laminate or metallize it. The product is a film to start with and remains a film after process of lamination or metallization. Thus, there is no new distinct product which has come into existence and it would have to be concluded that there is no manufacture. 16. It was however submitted that the case has proceeded on the admitted footing that there was a manufacture. It was submitted that the matter must be remitted back to decide whether there is manufacture. It was submitted that this aspect will have to be decided in terms of Note 12 to Chapter 39 and after looking at the process adopted by the Appellants. It was submitted that under the present Tariff there are separate subheading and thus after exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 24) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In our aforesaid view we are supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Laminated Packaging: (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that polyethylene laminated kraft paper. produced out of lamination on duty paid kraft paper with polyethylene amounts to manufacture." .................................. (b) The above decision of CESTAT has been followed in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 145 (Tri. - Mumbai) CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai in case of Paper Products Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Final Order No. A/1040/2013-WZB/C-I1(ÉB), dated 1211-2013 in Appeal No. B/21/2009-MUM. ............................................. 36.5. We find that the Principal Bench in the case involving Markwell Paper Plast Pvt Ltd, M/s. Sheetal Mercantile (P) Ltd and M/s Chawla Packaging (supra) distinguished the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the basis of the facts of the cases. Bench held that 19. In para 15 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that mere lamination or metallization of a film does not bring about a new distinct product as such said process cannot be termed as ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Laminated Packaging (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that polyethylene laminated kraft paper produced out of lamination on duty paid kraft paper with polyethylene amounts to manufacture. The relevant observations of Supreme Court are reproduced thus :- "4. After this impugned Act was passed, the same was challenged before the Bombay High Court by several writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 623 of 1979 along with others were disposed of by the Bombay High Court by judgment delivered by the division bench on 16/17th June, 1983 in the case of New Shakti Dye works Pvt. Ltd. & Mahalakshmi Dyeing and Printing Works v. Union of India & Anr. [1983 E.L.T. 1736 (Bom.)]. By the said judgment, the Bombay High Court disposed of 24 writ petitions as the question involved in all those petitions was identical. In that case the constitutional validity of the impugned Act as well as the levy of duty on certain goods identical to the present goods involved in this application under Article 32 of the Constitution was involved. The Bombay High Court dismissed the said writ petitions. We will refer to the said decision later.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, has distinguished the decision of the apex Court in the case of Metlex. The Bench finds that though the Supreme Court has observed that mere lamination or metallization of a film does not bring about a new distinct product, as such said process cannot be termed as manufacture, Hon'ble Supreme Court was referring to the plea of the department urging for remand of the case back for decision whether or not there was manufacture; in that context Hon'ble Apex Court held that the onus was on the department to prove by cogent evidence that there was manufacture and that the tribunal was clearly in error (in the case of Metlex) in seeking to cast the burden on the assessee to show that there was no process of manufacture. We find that Co-ordinate Bench further held that the judgment of Supreme Court in Metlex (I) Pvt Ltd cannot be applied universally de hors the facts. We find that as held by Hon'ble Apex Court, ibid, whenever the question arises whether or not the product in question came into being from a process of manufacture the adjudicating authority is required to refer to the facts of the case to come to the conclusion as to whether the process amounted to manufacture or not. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, that is the packaging material, is not only different from the raw material used, unlike in the case of Metlex, but also it ceases to be a laminate for general use and can only be used by the particular customer/manufacturer, who ordered for the same. That being the case, we are of the considered opinion that the facts of the impugned case being different, the ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in Metlex (I) Pvt Ltd is not applicable. Further, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Srikumar Agencies - 2008 (232) ELT 577 (S.C.) held that one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases; disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. Hon'ble Court also quoted the words of Lord Denning in this, who said "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cases, on the same issue. In some cases, they pleaded that the processes involved amounted to manufacture. In some cases, it submits that they did not amount to manufacture. Thus, we find that the decision of the Tribunal in M/s Markwell and M/s Paper products has attained finality being approved by the High Courts and not being appealed against by Revenue. Moreover, Learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 22-062018, in respect of one of the appellants themselves, decided the issue in favour of the appellants, for the same impugned period. The order was accepted by the department. Therefore, we find that the processes undertaken by the appellants in converting laminated/ metallised laminates in to packaging material, amounts to manufacture. As far as the availment of the benefit of Notification No. 56/2002, the only objection by Revenue was that the processes undertaken by the appellants did not amount to manufacture. No other case has been made out regarding the eligibility. As the only reason, for denial of the benefit of the Notification, is set to rest in favour of the appellants, we find that there was no infirmity in the availment of the benefit of Notification No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Income Tax, Calcutta reported in (2004) 12 SCC 42; Birla Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (2005) 6 SCC 95 = 2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.); and Jayaswals Neco Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.)] 44. Though, it has been generally accepted that the principles of Res judicata or Estoppel are not applicable to taxation matters, the application should be with a proper reasoning and if the circumstances so demand. Delhi High Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd 1981 (8) ELT 328 (Del) laid down the following principles as to when the Department could depart from its earlier views. (i) If the facts are different or further and fresh facts are brought on record or (ii) if the process of manufacture has changed (this was a central excise case) or (iii) if the relevant entries in the Tariff have undergone a modification; or (iv) if, subsequent to the earlier decision, there has been a pronouncement of a High Court or the Supreme which necessitates reconsideration of the issue. Further, fact that the earlier adjudication order was not reviewed by the department could not per se preclude the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w laid down by Tribunal, in the cases of M/s MPPPL and M/s PPL, which was upheld by three High Courts and more so as the Commissioner (Appeals), in his order dated 22.06.2018, followed the decision of the Tribunal and the department had accepted the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 47. Further, the issue of classification or excisability of goods has to be uniform and cannot depend upon a particular period unless there is a change in law. Therefore, we find merit in the plea of the appellants that Revenue is precluded from taking a different stand in the present appeals as per law laid down by Courts and Tribunal in a catena of cases. Further, we find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaiswals NECO- 2006 (195) ELT 142 (SC) held that the Tribunal is bound by the decision of a Coordinate Bench and the only option in case it wants to differ is to refer to a larger Bench. In the instant case we have the precedence of judgments by two coordinate Benches upheld by 3 High Courts. Therefore, we are bound by the decision in the cases of M/s Markwell and M/s Paper products by two coordinate Benches. In the case of Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. 2023 (3) CENTAX 96 (T-Mum), tribunal held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s clear the writ petition filed by M/s Montage Enterprises was disposed of on the basis of the assurance given by the Revenue Counsel that the grievance of the appellant is redressed by passing the order by Commissioner (Appeals) on 22-6-2018. It is clear that the Hon'ble Court was given to understand that the grievance of the appellant stands redressed and there is nothing against the appellant. On the contrary, the adjudicating authority has not followed the order and has clearly ignored the assurance given to the Hon'ble Court. In the case of other appellants, Hon'ble High Court directed that the adjudicating authority shall decide the case on merits without being influenced by the circular dated 07.11.2007. As the circular was issued on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Metlex, Hon'ble High Court appears to have indicated that the circular and the thus, the decision in the case of Metlex, per se have no applicability to the facts of the cases before them. We find that in spite of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the facts of the impugned cases in a just and fair way as an independent adjudica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not applicable to some of the goods produced by a manufacturer, such refund shall not exceed the amount of duty paid less the amount of the CENVAT Credit availed of, in respect of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods cleared under this notification (c) If there is likely to be any delay in the verification, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall refund the amount on provisional basis by the 15th day of the next month to the month under consideration, and thereafter may adjust the amount of refund by such amount as may be necessary in the subsequent refunds admissible to the manufacturer. 51.1. An amendment has been brought by Notification Number 65/2003 dated 6.8.2003, inserting 2A under the Notification. Section 2(A)(g) provides that (g) the amount of the credit availed irregularly or availed of in excess of the amount determined correctly refundable under clause (e) and not reversed by the manufacturer within the period specified in that clause, shall be recoverable as if it is a recovery of duty of excise erroneously refunded. In case such irregular or e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. Hon'ble J&K court followed the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati in the case of Jellalpore Tea Estate2011 (268) E.L.T. 14 (Gau.). Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati was dealing with a similar Notification No. 33/99-CE, issued for North-Eastern Areas of the Country, held that: 12. ................... A bare reading of Section 11A of the Act indicates that power can be exercised only if duty has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied etc. "on the basis of any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty on or valuation of excisable goods under any other provisions of this Act". Insofar as the present case is concerned, the only issue that arose for consideration was whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-99. There was no issue of any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty nor was there any issue relating to the valuation of any excisable goods. Ex-facie, therefore, Section 11A of the Act was inapplicable to the facts of the case. 54. Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, in the case of Tripura Ispat (A unit of Lohia Group), in WP(C) No.465 of 2020, held that 13. If ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on various case laws. We also find that the learned counsel submits as regards the self-credit of Rs. 6,45,840, availed on the goods which were returned, re-manufactured and re-sold after payment of appropriate central excise duty, that Rule 16(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002provides for such return; the appellants having remanufactured and cleared the goods again on payment of duty, are duly entitled for availing refund under the provisions of Notification No. 56/2002-CE dated 14-112002; the department, vide Order-in-Appeal dated 27-02-2013, passed on identical issue, allowed the same; the order attained finality as the department did not challenge the same; further, this Bench in appellants (M/s MEPL) own case 2018 (364) ELT 1003 (Tri. - Chan) held that the Appellants followed the due procedure for return of goods and re-clearance. 57. We have gone through the cases relied upon by the appellants. It is held in a number of cases that when the final product is cleared on payment of duty, CENVAT credit would be available, if otherwise eligible. The impugned order seeks to deny CENVAT Credit for the reason that the processes undertaken by the appellants do not amount to manuf....