Page 57 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] COURT-ROOM HIGHLIGHTS A31

The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had followed the decision
in the case of Apex Court in 2015 (319) E.L.T. 578 (S.C.), held that the activity of
conversion of unrefined lead ingots into refined lead ingots to make lead alloys
for making batteries amounts to manufacture as a new product having a distinct
name, character and use comes into existence as a result of a process which
makes the said product commercially usable.
The Tribunal had followed the decision reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 203
(Bom.), held that demand is not sustainable when activity not amounts to manu-
facture, the payment of duty shall be the amount of reversal of Cenvat credit.
The Tribunal further held that the raw material after processing returned
to supplier and principal manufacturer had already filed an undertaking before
the Department for discharging the duty on manufactured goods so, the condi-
tion under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. fulfilled. Thus, the benefit of Notification
No. 214/86-C.E. cannot be denied.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,
AOR, Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Ms. Aakansha Kaul and
Mr. Prabudh Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikuma-
ran, Mr. Aaditya Bhattacharya, Mr. Manish Rastogi,
Ms. Apeksha Mehta and Mr. Victor Das, Advocates, for
the Respondent.
(1) Area based exemption, removal of higher quantity to
sister unit than reflected in records — Misuse of noti-
fication, whether established when goods received
back after processing?

(2) Cenvat credit — Denial solely on suppliers’ statement
of non-supply of inputs, whether sustainable in ab-
sence of cross-examination and absence of transport-
ers’ statement?
(3) Valuation (Central Excise) — Rule 9 of Central Excise
Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable
Goods) Rules, 2000, whether applicable when clear-
ances made to sister unit at a price at which similar
goods cleared to independent buyers?

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.
Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari on 27-1-2020 after con-
doning the delay admitted the Civil Appeal Diary No. 7949 of 2019 filed by
Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana against the CESTAT Final Order Nos.
62899-62900/2018, dated 31-8-2018 as reported in 2019 (368) E.L.T. 169 (Tri.-
Chan.) (Ambika Overseas v. Commissioner). While admitting the appeal, the Su-
preme Court passed the following order :
“Delay condoned.
Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned
order(s) is allowed.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  105