2018 (2) TMI 1001 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT credit – input/input services for manufacture of taxable as well as exempt goods – non-maintenance of separate records – demand of an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the exempted goods cleared – Held that: – there is no dispute as to the fact the respondent had cleared the sulphuric acid to fertilizer unit which 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 – demand set aside – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – Appeal No. E/30936/2017 – Final Order No. A/31909/2017 – Dated:- 1-12-2017 – 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 fil
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
acid, revenue authorities raised demands for an amount equivalent to 5% or 6% of the value of such clearances made by fertilizer unit as the respondent had not maintained separate accounts. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised but the First Appellate Authority set aside the demands confirmed, relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the respondent s own case. I find that there is no dispute as to the fact the respondent had cleared the sulphuric acid to fertilizer unit which 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.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
f duty. It has, further, been brought to my notice that Hon ble Tribunal, Bangalore vide Final Order No. 20057/2014 dated 21.01.2014 in the appellant s own case had held as follows: 1. Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein it has been held that the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, require an assessee to pay an amount specified therein in case the inputs are used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods on the value of exempted goods. The Revenue is 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 follo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
en placed before me for consideration. Under these circumstances, in view of the fact that the precedent decision covers the issue, I find that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is accordingly rejected . This decision has also been reiterated by the Hon ble Tribunal in their Final Order No.200066/2014 dated 21.01.2014 while deciding another appeal filed by the appellant. It has further been brought to my notice that the Hon ble jurisdictional Tribunal at 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 provi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =