Emerson Process Management Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & CE Chennai South
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 1541 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 23-10-2018
Appeal No. E/40310/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 42658/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri Adithya Srinivasan, Consultant, Ms. Meghna Arvind, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
The facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in manufacture of Industrial Valves, Gaskets etc. During verification of their ER-1 returns, it emerged that appellants had manufactured and supplied industrial valves to Mega Power Projects. It appeared to the department that for such supplies, the appellants were required to discharge excise duty under Notification No.12/2012-CE dt. 17.03.2012 as amended which was not done by them. Department also took the view that benefit of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s, 2004 is exempt from paying duty on intermediate goods even though the Final product is exempted. The appellant has discharged the NIL obligation arising out of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, since they are absolved from the provisions of Rule 6 by virtue of Rule 6 (6)(vii) of the CCR, 2004.
ii) The matter is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the following Tribunal decisions :
– Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Raipur – 2017 (345) ELT 685 (Tri.Del.)
– Thermo Cables Ltd. vs. CCE Hyderabad – 2012 (202) ELT 412 (Tri. – Bang.)
iii) All such clearances to Mega Power Projects have been made under an intimation to the Central Excise Department and hence there is no question of Suppression of facts let alone with an intention to evade duty. Even assuming that the duty is payable, it is entirely a revenue-neutral exercise. Further, malafide intention cannot be fastened in a case where interpretation of the statute is involved.
3. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
i) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Notification 67/95 makes it clear that the exemption for captive consumption of intermediate products has been correctly claimed by the appellant in the present case.”
4.3 In Thermo Cables Ltd. Vs CCE Hyderabad – 2012 (202) ELT 412 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal inter alia held as under
“6. From the above proviso to Notification No. 67/95-C.E. ibid, it appears that the bar created therein is not applicable to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products cleared by a manufacturer of such exempted final products as well as dutiable final products. In other words, where the manufacturer manufactures both dutiable and exempted final products and uses the inputs in question in the manufacture of the exempted final products, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of duty on such inputs in terms of the opening paragraph of the Notification. This right is not hit by
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =