2018 (10) TMI 1541 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Benefit of N/N. 67/95-CE dt. 16.06.95 – Supply of industrial valves to Mega Power Projects – demand of Excise duty under N/N. 12/2012-CE dt. 17.03.2012 as amended – Held that:- The matter id covered by the decision in the case of Bharat Aluminium Co.Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur [2017 (4) TMI 276 – CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that The exclusion made under sub-clause (vii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 read with proviso to N/N. 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 – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/40310/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 42658/2018 – Dated:- 23-10-2018 – 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 B
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ay when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Shri Adithya Srinivasan, Consultant and Ms.Meghna Arvind, Advocate made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : i) Exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE is available by virtue of Clause (vi) of proviso contained in the Notification. As per Clause (vi), a manufacturer of dutiable products and exempted products after discharging the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 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.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
.E. cannot be automatically made. However, we note that the original authority discussed extensively the applicability of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 and there is no mention or discussion regarding appellant s eligibility of exemption on final product. What is sought to be denied is the exemption under Notification No. 67/95 for intermediate goods and not for the final product under Notification No. 6/2006. We find that the exclusion made under sub-clause (vii) 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 rela
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
es were not applicable, by virtue of sub-rule (6), to the assessee who were clearing their exempted final products against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. ibid. In other words, a conjoint reading of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and clause (vi) under the proviso to Notification No. 67/95-C.E. ibid would show that the assessee s claim for exemption from payment of duty on copper wire under the Notification was not hit by the opening portion of the proviso to the Notification. 4.4 A recent Tribunal decision in Kei Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Alwar – 2017 (357) ELT 1230 (Tri.-Del.) has also followed the same ratio. 4.5 We find no reason to deviate from the above ratio already laid down by the Tribunal decisions supra. 5. In view thereof, the impugned order cannot therefore sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. Appeal is therefore allowed, with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. (dictated and pronou
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =