Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal – GST Versus M/s Chemtech Acids and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 1001 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 1-12-2017
Appeal No. E/30936/2017 – Final Order No. A/31909/2017
Central Excise
Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member ( Judicial )
Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner ( AR ) for the Appellant
Shri V.A.A. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent
ORDER
[ Order Per : M. V. Ravindran ]
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-001-APP-021 & 022-17-18 dated 02.05.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the First Appellate Authority is in error for dropping the demands raised against the respondent in respect of the demand of an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the exempted goods cleared.
4. After filtering out of unnecessary details the factual matrix is the respondent is manufa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ch availed the benefit of Notification No. 04/2006-CE as amended. The said Notification specifically provides for availment of an exemption subject to following the chapter X procedure. It is settled law, the goods cleared under chapter X procedure are not exempted goods as held by Tribunal; which are relied upon by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order in paragraph 6 which I reproduce:
6. On examination of the facts of the case, I find that the issue raised is no more res integra. In a series of decisions, various benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal have, in the context of the erstwhile Rule 57(C) and 57(cc) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the provisions of which are largely comparable with Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, held that the goods cleared under chapter X procedure of the erstwhile Rules, 1944 are neither exempted goods nor are goods chargeable to nil rate of duty and, hence, credit was not reversible. The decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
aggrieved by the decision that the provision is not attracted. In this case, Sulphuric Acid has been cleared by the appellant to the fertilizer manufacturers which is exempt subject to the conditions that the fertilizer manufacturer follows the procedures laid down in Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. There is no dispute that the clearance was made under Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and the customers have followed the relevant procedure and the rules. The only ground in appeal is that exempted goods including nil rate of duty and the Notification No. 4/2006 specifies nil rate in respect of Sulphuric Acid cleared to fertilizer manufacturers.
2. After hearing the learned AR for some time and going through the records, I find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dharami Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd., Vs. CCE, Raigad [2010 (255) ELT 314 (Tri-Mumbai)] wherei
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t Hyderabad in their Final Order No. A/30917/2016 dated 24.10.2016 in the appeal filed by the appellant has held as follows:
“The appellants are aggrieved by the show cause notice issued demand the credit availed on the duty paid on inputs which were used for clearing both exempted as well as duty paid goods.
2. It is the case of department that as the appellant did not maintain separate accounts, though common inputs were used for manufacture of exempted and duty paid goods and therefore violated the provision of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for appellant Sh. V.A.A. Ravi Kumar submitted that the issue stands covered by the judgment passed by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case vide Final Order No.20057/2014 dated 21.02.2014. Further, this Tribunal in the case of CCE& ST, Hyderabad-III Vs. M/s Kishore Sons Surfactants has decided the issue in favour the assessee vide Final Order No.A/30006/2015. Following the decisions rendered in the above
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =