2018 (5) TMI 862 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT credit – taxable as well as exempt goods – non-maintenance of separate records – Held that: – the provisions of Rule 6(2) would apply only when dutiable and exempted finished goods are manufactured with the same inputs, while in the case in hand, the goods ‘Sulphuric Acid’ is not exempted goods at all when they were manufactured, but when they are cleared, they were cleared under Chapter X of Central Excise (Removable of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) – credit allowed – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – APPEAL No. E/31161/2017 – A/30506/2018 – Dated:- 17-4-2018 – Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Shri Arun Kumar, Dy. Commissioner/AR for the Appellant. Shri N. Anand, Adv
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
xempted goods, has to pay an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of sulphuric acid cleared to various fertiliser units. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demands raised along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after following due process of law, set aside the Order-in-Original 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 g
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
oods are manufactured with the same inputs, while in the case in hand, the goods Sulphuric Acid is not exempted goods at all when they were manufactured, but when they are cleared, they were cleared under Chapter X of Central Excise (Removable of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty). Reliance placed on the case of Atlas Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., [2017(350) E.L.T 42 (Bom)] will also not carry the 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 cl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =