CCT, Guntur GST Versus The Andhra Sugars Limited
Central Excise
2018 (5) TMI 862 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 17-4-2018
APPEAL No. E/31161/2017 – A/30506/2018
Central Excise
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member(Judicial)
Shri Arun Kumar, Dy. Commissioner/AR for the Appellant.
Shri N. Anand, Advocate for the Respondent.
[Order per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran]
1. This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. GUNEXCUS- 000-APP-048-17-18, dated 30.06.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding reversal of an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of goods cleared as exempted from the factory premises of the respondent.
4
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
by following the Final Order of this Bench A/30944 to 30949/2016, dated 26.09.2016 in this assessee's own case.
5. It is the case of Revenue in this appeal that the final order dated 26.09.2016 would have been challenged before the higher authorities but due to new monetary limit policy of the Govt. of India, it was not done so; that the goods which are cleared i.e. sulphuric acid, were undisputedly cleared without payment of duty and the provisions of CENVAT credit Rules, more specifically Rule 6 (2) would apply in its full force and the demand of 6% of the value of the exempted goods should be confirmed.
6. After hearing the submissions made by both sides, I find that this Bench in the Final Order dated 26.09.2016, for the period Septe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
case of Revenue any further, as I find in the case in hand that identical issue of the supply of sulphuric acid of the very same appellant has been considered by this Bench and taken a view that Central Excise Tariff under chapter X procedure does not entitle the Revenue to the demands of amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods so cleared, while in the case of Atlas Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., (supra), there was a factual finding that the petitioners, initially were reversing the CENVAT credit on the inputs contained in the finished goods cleared under Chapter X procedure and abruptly shifted their stand refusing to reverse such CENVAT credit, it is for that reason the demands were raised. The facts are clearly different tha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =