2026-VIL-189-CESTAT-BLR-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Duty on Blending of LPG, Demand invoking extended period - Whether the activity of mixing/blending of 'propane' and 'butane' undertaken by appellant, on behalf of IOCL, amounts to manufacture HELD - The activity of mixing/blending of 'propane' and 'butane' undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. Once the blending was done, the resultant product was LPG, which was then cleared by the appellant - There was neither suppression of facts nor any willful misstatement by the appellant to warrant invocation of the extended period of limitation. All the activities were undertaken in full transparency and were within the knowledge of the department – The appeal is partially allowed by confirming the demand for the normal period. However, the demand alleging ineligible CENVAT credit against the appellant is dropped as the credit was held to be eligible - Whether the CENVAT credit availed and utilized during the course of investigation was an ineligible credit and the confirmation of demand is tenable – HELD - As per Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, CENVAT credit can be availed on the basis of prescribed documents, including a Bill of Entry. Following the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India Vs. M/s. Marmagoa Steel Ltd. and the Tribunal's own decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II, the CENVAT credit cannot be denied for imported goods once duty is paid and goods are received, even if technical deficiencies exist in the Bill of Entry. The period of limitation computed was also held to be unsustainable.

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page