TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as issued on 01.09.2016 for the period from August 2015 to July 2016. Adjudication Authority as per the impugned order confirmed the demand against both the show cause notices and also demanded interest. Further against the first show cause notice, penalty of an equal amount was also imposed. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Learned Chartered Accountant (CA) for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is involved in trading of chemicals for granites, fiber glass meshes, resin bond abrasives, epoxy resins, hardeners, colours and other chemicals. In respect of trading of epoxy resins, hardeners, colours and other chemicals, it is purchased in barrels and the same are sold in smaller containers ranging from 1 kg to 5 Kgs as per the requirements of the customers. As regarding 'Epoxy Resin', it is only stirred to reduce viscosity and packed into small containers without change in the name, character or use. Regularly hardeners and colours are also purchased from the manufactures and after transferring from larger barrels into small cans, thereafter they are packed in corrugated cartons and dispatched. Mixing is don....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertaken to manufacture the products. In this regard, the Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the activity performed by M/s. Klaus Specialities are different and unrelated to the activities undertaken by the Appellant. While the products maybe the similar, the processes undertaken are different. It can be seen that the impugned order has confirmed the demand on wrong facts. Apart from above, the Appellant's request in Para 15 to the show cause notice (SCN) reply for cross-examination of Shri. Vivian Philip Lewis of M/s. Klaus Specialties was denied. Adjudication Authority merely confirmed the demand on third party statement. Thus, relying on the statement of proprietor of M/s. Klaus Specialities cannot be made applicable to the present case. Learned Chartered Accountant also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. - 1977 (1) E.L.T (J 199) (S.C) wherein it is held that every change is not manufacture and that the transformation should result in a new and different article emerging having distinctive name, character or use. In Appellant's case, as a result of processing, there is no final product or output ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice while computing the proposed demand considered the turnover of hardeners and colours also, wherein there is no allegation of manufacture of these products. Hence the turnover of hardeners and colours are required to be removed. Further submits that in few of the cases, Appellant have supplied only 'epoxy resin' without hardeners and colours and even without any process. Hence turnover of sale of only 'Epoxy resin' is required to be reduced, further the learned Chartered Accountant to substantiate, draws out attention to the detailed computation sheet certified by the Chartered Accountant. 9. Further for extending cum-duty benefit, learned Chartered Accountant submits that even if the activity amounts to manufacture, Appellants have not collected the duty amount separately from the customers, which is very much clear from the invoices raised by them to customer. Hence, if they are liable to pay duty the benefit of cum-duty is required to be extended. 10. As regards the demand confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation and penalty, learned Chartered Accountant submits that the Appellants were under the belief that repacking of product does not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings Ltd. - 2010 (260) E.L.T 167 (S.C). j. Andaman Timber Industries Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-II 2015 (324) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) k. Aswani & Co. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I 2015 (327) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. - Del.) 11. As regards second show cause notice, during the period from August 2015 to July 2016, the Appellant manufactured and cleared 'epoxy resins' valued at Rs.2,74,78,611/- classifying them correctly under Chapter Heading 39073010 but paying duty under protest since, the matter was still pending with Adjudicating Authority. 12. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submits that it is an undisputed fact that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of 'Epoxy Resin' which is used in polishing the Granite Slabs to obtain proper shining on the polished slabs. Learned AR also explained the process of manufacture adopted by the Appellant. 13. As regards allowing Cenvat credit already available by Appellant for set off towards the duty payment liability against them, learned AR submits that since Appellants have furnished a Chartered Accountant cert....