NMDC Limited Versus CCT, Rangareddy GST
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 529 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 17-9-2018
Appeal No. E\/30543\/2018 – A\/31172\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nShri Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner \/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao
\n1. This appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUSRRC- APP-023-17-18 APP I, Dated 04.01.2018.
\n2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
\n3. The appellant herein is a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron from iron ore. During the process of manufacture, iron ore fines gets generated which is a waste product but it has marketable value. During audit, the assessee was asked to reverse CENVAT credit under rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 to the extent they have gone into the value of iron ore fines on the ground that they were exempted. Appe<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n missed and the Order-in-Original was upheld. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n this issue. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" NMDC Limited Versus CCT, Rangareddy GSTCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 529 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 17-9-2018Appeal No. E\/30543\/2018 – A\/31172\/2018Central ExciseMr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner \/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao 1. … Continue reading “NMDC Limited Versus CCT, Rangareddy GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14404","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they had contested the demand both on merits as well as on limitation before the first appellate authority. They further contested that no penalty can be imposed on them alleging suppression of facts with an intent to evade payment of duty for the reason that they are the Public Sector Undertaking and have no intention of avoiding payment of duty or irregularly availing CENVAT credit. Before the first appellate authority, he also relied on the cases of CCE Raipur vs. Arti Sponge & Power Ltd. 2017(350)ELT 268 (Tri.-Del.)] to argue that iron ore fines which are produced during the process of manufacture of sponge iron ore are not a manufactured product at all and therefore Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 does not apply in this case. This was recorded in the order of the first appellate authority. Appellant further relied upon the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemica<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. 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 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. [2017(49)STR 503 (Tri.-Del.)] and Aarti Sponge & Power Limited [2017(350)ELT 268 (Tri.-Del.)], 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. I find that the first appellate authority has not considered this aspect at all.
\n7. In view of the above, I find that it is a fit case to be remanded back to the first appellate authority to examine the issue on merits and also on limitation in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal.
\n8. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
\n(Dictated and Pronounced in open Court)<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n