Page 288 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

174 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 4/3/2006, dated 16-6-2006 ............................................................. [Para 15.3]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 911/1/2010-CX, dated 14-1-2010 .............................................................. [Para 10]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri A.R. Madhav Rao and R.K. Hasija,
Advocates, for the Assessee.
Shri Atul Handa, A.R., for the Department.
[Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - M/s. Gravaita Metal (hereinaf-
ter referred to as GM for short) and M/s. Gravita Metals Inc. (hereinafter referred
to as GMI for short) have filed appeals against the impugned orders passed by
Commissioner/Commissioner (Appeals) against the confirmation of demand of
duty and imposing penalty and Revenue is also in appeal against allowing Cen-
vat credit to M/s. GM.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, M/s. GM is enjoying the benefit of
backward area exemption Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002 since
2006. The exemption under the notification is granted by way of refund/self-
credit of excise duty paid through PLA in excess of the available Cenvat credit.
The appellants were manufacturing from unrefined lead ingots to refined lead
ingots and thereafter from the refined lead ingots to lead alloys to exacting speci-
fications as required by battery manufacturers. Revenue is of the view that the
appellant is not entitled for the benefit of notification, on the grounds that the
process of making refined lead ingots and lead alloys, does not amount to manu-
facture.
3. In these set of facts, show cause notice was issued to M/s. GM to de-
ny the benefit of Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., dated 14-11-2002 wherein the
duty paid from PLA by M/s. GM has taken as refund which is recoverable from
them and to deny the Cenvat credit on the said goods and to impose penalty on
M/s. GM. The matter was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority. The
amount of duty paid through PLA as self-credit was held to be recoverable from
M/s. GM and the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs was allowed and penalty
was also imposed. M/s. GM is in appeal against the confirmation of amount of
self-credit taken by them and imposing penalty whereas, the Revenue is in ap-
peal against the order of allowing Cenvat credit to M/s. GM.
4. M/s. GMI is doing job work under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. for
M/s. GM. They were receiving lead scrap and converting it into unrefined lead
ingots. All procedures under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. were followed by
M/s. GMI. M/s. GM, the supplier of the raw material, lead scrap had given an
undertaking to the Department to discharge the duty after carrying out manufac-
turing process in their factory. It has been alleged that the activity undertaken by
M/s. GM does not amount to manufacture therefore, no duty was payable by
M/s. GM. Consequently, M/s. GMI is liable to pay duty on the said goods
cleared by them to M/s. GM. In these set of facts, show cause notice issued to
them and after adjudication, demand was confirmed. Aggrieved from the said
order, M/s. GMI is also in appeal.
5. As the issue is inter-connected, whether the activity undertaken by
M/s. GM amounts to manufacture and M/s. GMI is not liable to pay duty.
Therefore, all the appeals are taken-up together for disposal by this common or-
der.
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellants-assessee submits that in the case of
M/s. GM and in the case of other manufacturers, the same process was adopted

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  336