Decided on January 05,2015

Cce, Belapur Respondents


Ashok Jindal, Member (J) - (1.)THE appellant M/s. Jindal Drugs has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of Rs. 23,02,53,752/ - has been confirmed on account of wrong availment of credit and dis -allowing the rebate of Rs. 13,22,30,368/ - for the period June 2008 to July 2012 along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs. 23,02,53,752/ -.
(2.)BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant is in the business of export of Coco Butter and Coco Powder. The appellant's factory at Jammu manufactures Coco Butter and Coco Powder. The appellant's another unit located at Taloja received these products. In their Taloja unit, the appellant affixed two labels on two sides of packages of the said goods received from their Jammu factory and cleared the same for export on payment of duty and claiming rebate of duty paid on the exported goods. The appellant was also availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on these goods at the time of clearance from Jammu. The appellant is also importing Coco Butter and Coco Powder from China and Malaysia and receives the same in their factory at Taloja. The contention of the appellant was that after receiving the import goods, they remove the old carton and repacked in a new carton by putting label thereon. The factory of the appellant was visited and found that the appellant is only putting labels on the goods procured from Jammu as well as on the imported goods. As the labels were already fixed on the boxes therefore additional labels affixed by the appellant does not amounts to manufacture as affixing of additional label does not enhance the marketability (as the goods are already marketable). Therefore, impugned proceedings were initiated against the appellant to deny the CENVAT Credit taken by them and consequently denying the rebate claim sanctioned to the appellant along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand as stated in para 1 here -in -above. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us.
Heard both sides.

"5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the show -cause notice admits that the appellant was doing the activity of (matter missing in source file)

8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. In view of Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 28 of the Act, the manufacturing activity would mean either;

"(a) Labelling or re -labelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs; OR

(b) An adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer."

9. Thus, either an activity of 4.1 He further submitted that the learned Commissioner has concluded that the appellant has not re -packed the imported goods is not correct as the appellant has procured corrugated boxes for packing and repacking Coco Butter and Coco Powder and recorded the same in their RG 1 register and the Gross Net weight of the imported goods and the Gross/Net weight of goods exported is different therefore, the conclusion of the learned Commissioner that repacking of imported goods has not taken place is without any basis.

(3.)2 He further submits that as the rebate claim has also been sanctioned after examination of the documents produced by the appellant. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable to the facts of this case as the activity of availing CENVAT Credit and (matter missing in source file)

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.