Page 210 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

96 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 96 (Tri. - Chan.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, CHANDIGARH
[COURT NO. I]
S/Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and Bijay Kumar, Member (T)
DOMINO PRINTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF C. EX., DELHI-III
Final Order Nos. 60155-60156/2019, dated 22-2-2019 in Appeal Nos. E/55352/2013
& E/51943/2014-EX(DB)
1
Manufacture - Refilling of imported ink from bulk container to small
packs i.e. printing reservoir and printing ink cartridges procured from third
party and re-labelling such small packs does not amount to manufacture - Sec-
tion 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. [paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 32]
Cenvat credit of CVD paid on ink imported in bulk container not ad-
missible when such ink refilled in printing reservoir and printing ink car-
tridges procured from third parties and cleared after re-labelling on payment
of duty as such does not amount to manufacture - However, duty paid by as-
sessee would amount to reversal of credit and no further reversal of credit of
CVD required - Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 37]
Demand - Limitation - Refilling of imported ink from bulk container
to small packs - Extended period of limitation not invocable when assessee
filed Excise returns mentioning therein that the activity undertaken does not
amount to manufacture - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 37]
Appeals allowed
CASES CITED
A.D. Steel Syndicate v. Collector — 1998 (103) E.L.T. 180 (Tribunal) — Relied on ................. [Paras 12, 25]
Air Liquide North India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2011 (271) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Referred . [Para 14]
Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001 (133) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) — Referred ..................... [Para 14]
Commissioner v. Ajinkya Enterprises — 2013 (294) E.L.T. 203 (Bom.) — Relied on .............. [Paras 10, 36]
Commissioner v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. — 2001 (130) E.L.T. 65 (Tribunal)
— Relied on .............................................................................................................................. [Paras 12, 27]
Commissioner v. S.R. Tissues— 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) — Relied on ....................................... [Para 24]
Safex Fire Services v. Commissioner — 2001 (127) E.L.T. 182 (Tribunal) — Relied on .......... [Paras 12, 26]
Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (319) E.L.T. 578 (S.C.)
— Relied on .............................................................................................................................. [Paras 12, 22]
Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.
— 1977 (1) E.L.T.(J 199) (S.C.) — Relied on ........................................................................ [Paras 12, 20]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri B.L. Narasimhan and Amarender Singh, Ad-
vocates, for the Appellant.
Shri G.M. Sharma, AR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - The appellant has filed these
________________________________________________________________________
1 In appeal against this order, notice was issued by Supreme Court in 2020 (372) E.L.T. A24
(S.C.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  258