TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1695
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f facts are the Appellant M/s Manibhadra Food Products, Bangalore is a Proprietary concern, and Proprietress is Mrs. Sumitra Mehta and they have commenced operations in 2001. Initially, Appellant was engaged in trading and exporting of spices and other products. The Appellant is an authorised wholesale dealer/distributor for various other manufacturing units. In 2003, in addition to trading, Appellant commenced re-packing Maize Starch powder from bulk into smaller packaging and selling the same under its own brand name ATC. In 2000, the husband of the Proprietress, Shri. Suresh Kumar Mehta had commenced a unit carrying the very same activity in the name of M/s. Manibhadra Food Products, Hugli (M/s MFP, Hugli) to cater to the re-packing of Maize starch power or corn flour into retail pack of one kg with the same brand name as sold earlier by the Appellant. Alleging that the Appellant had resorted to re-packing of Maize Starch Powder falling under Chapter 11 into smaller units of one kg packets and it amounts to manufacturing and attracts excise duty, proceedings were initiated and show cause notice (SCN) was issued. Adjudication authority as per the impugned order, confirmed the dem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of repacking, the conclusion that Appellant had engaged in repacking activity was without any basis. There is no evidence regarding availability of packing material used for unit packages or availability of any such retail packing bearing name of the re-packer as M/s MFP, Bangalore. The Learned Counsel further submits that prior to 2009 i.e. before the repacking activity was shifted to Hubli, M/s. MFP Bangalore was procuring packing material i.e., printed pouches for retails packs of one Kg for packing Maize Starch Powder/Corn Flour and different other products from only one manufacturer M/s. Pushpa Roto Printers, Bangalore. The said party is registered under Central Excise and a simple enquiry by the department would have revealed that the last supply of printed pouches for Maize Starch Powder/Corn Flour to M/s. MFP, Bangalore was made under the cover of invoice No. 154 dated 24.05.2008 and no supplies were made thereafter. In support of their submission, the appellants had placed on record the details of supply of various printed packing materials/pouches by M/s. Pushpa Roto Printers to M/s. MFP Bangalore as well as to M/s. MFP Hubli as certified by the supplier, along with copie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- duty value) Taxable Value Duty Payable Ed. Cess Payable SHE Cess Payable Total Duty Payable 2010-11 (01.08.10 to 28.02.11) 20,090,111 2,431,222 17,658,889 16,960,132 678,405 13,568 6,784 698,757 2010-11 (01.03.11 to 31.03.11) 3,245,511 885,084 2,360,427 2,244,819 112,241 2,245 1,122 115,608 2011-12 (01.04.11 to 16.03.12) 36,959,185 7,675,520 29,283,665 27,849,420 1,392,471 27,849 13,925 . 1,434,245 2011-12 (17.03.12 to 31.03.12) 1,703,693 1,466,355 237,338 273,070 16,384 328 164 16,876 2012-13 43,048,015 3,686,576 39,361,438 37,070,482 2,224,229 44,485 22,242 2,290,956 2013-14 46,455,977 10,237,861 36,218,116 34,110,111 2,046,607 40,932 20,466 2,108,005 2014-15 37,437,195 8,790,560 28,646,635 26,979,314 1,618,759 32,375 16,188 1,667,322 GRAND TOTAL 188,939,687 35,173,178 153,766,508 145,487,348 8,089,096 161,782 80,891 8,331,769 9. The Learned Counsel further submits that as per show cause notice, impugned order and as per the information received by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e against M/s MFP, Hugli unit where demand was made for Rs.1,57,56,742/-, they have settled the issue by paying Rs.1,47,80,187/- through CENVAT account being the credit availed on Maize starch powder received in bulk and printed pouches and only balance of Rs. 9,76,182/- was payable. Once 90% of the duty was paid by utilizing the CENVAT Credit available on the product received by them in bulk, there is no reason or justification to allege that the Appellant had resorted to nonpayment of excise duty as applicable. Even after scrutiny of the CENVAT credit availed in the Hugli unit, claim for a meager amount Rs. 16,29,018/- is found ineligible and they had settled the issue by paying said amount also as directed. The appellants had relied upon the following decisions in support of their plea of dropping the demand. (a) Chemco Steels Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2005 (191) E.L.T 856 (Tri-Bang)] (b) British Biologicals (Unit-II) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2011 (266) E.L.T 217 (Tri-Bang)] as affirmed by the Supreme Court (2012 (286) E.L.T A 151(S.C) (c) Aum Aluminium Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise [2014 (311) E.L.T....