2018 (10) TMI 529 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT Credit – applicability of rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 – iron ore fines gets generated during the course of manufacture which is a waste product but it has marketable value – Held that:- There is no dispute on the facts of the case that the demand is on reversal of CENVAT credit under rule 6(3) for the value of iron ore fines generated by the appellant during the process of manufacture of final products viz; Sponge iron – On the very same issue in the case of Maa Mangla Ispat Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (5) TMI 268 – CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Principal Bench of CESTAT has decided that Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 does not apply because iron ore fines are not manufactured let alone being exempted – the first appellate authority has not considered this aspect at all.
–
It is a fit case to be remanded back to the first appellate authority to examine the issue on merits and also on limitation – Appeal allowed by way of remand. – Appeal No. E/30543/2018 – A/31172
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
during the audit, it was found that the amount of credit which the appellant has reversed was not correct and it was recalculated and an additional amount of about ₹ 11.00 lakhs was also required to be reversed. Appellant was served a show cause notice accordingly, proposing to recover the amount along with interest. It was also proposed to impose penalty upon the appellant. After the issue of show cause notice, appellant reversed the demanded amount along with interest. The original authority had confirmed the demand as proposed in the show cause notice and appropriated the amount already paid by the appellant. He also imposed a penalty equivalent to the amount of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was dismissed and the Order-in-Original was upheld. Hence this appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they had contested the demand both on merits as well as on limitation before t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tended period of limitation cannot be sustained. However, in the findings, the first appellate authority has only considered the aspect of imposition of penalty and has not examined the contention of the appellant on merits that they were not required to reverse duty under Rule 6(3) on the value of iron ore fine generated by them. 5. Ld. DR does not dispute the facts of the case but he points out that appellant had nowhere contested before the original authority about their liability to reverse the CENVAT credit under rule 6(3) proportionate value of iron ore fine. Although the appellant had contested this point before the first appellate authority, he has not recorded any findings on this aspect. He therefore pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the first appellate authority for consideration on this issue. 6. I have considered the arguments of both sides. There is no dispute on the facts of the case that the demand is on reversal of CENVAT credit under rule 6(3) for the va
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =