Devi Iron & Power (P) Ltd. Versus CC, CGST & CE, Raipur
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 566 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 7-2-2019
Appeal No. E\/52208\/2018 – Final Order No. 50190\/2019
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nMs. Shreya Dahia, Advocate – for the appellant
\nShri K. Poddar, DR – for the respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
\nAfter hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron. Coal is one of the inputs in the manufacture of the said final product. Coal became dutiable with effect from 1.3.2011 and prior to that there was no duty paid on the coal received by the assessee. However, with effect from 1.3.2011, the coal procured by the appellant was duty paid and the appellant was availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the same.
\n2. Before the use of the coal in the manufacturing activity, the same is required to be washed and screened, during whic<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n credit was ever availed by them. Otherwise also they contested the demand on the ground that the provisions of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable inasmuch as the same relates to clearance of inputs “as such”. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n m that of imported brass scrap. Accordingly, clearance of foreign material such as iron, steel, rubber, plastic, dust etc. cannot be treated as clearance of inputs as such. It may be noted that Circular No. 62\/2001-Cus. Dated 12.11.2001 [2001 (134) ELT (T39)] does not apply to the issue at hand as the facts at hand are different. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Devi Iron & Power (P) Ltd. Versus CC, CGST & CE, RaipurCentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 566 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 7-2-2019Appeal No. E\/52208\/2018 – Final Order No. 50190\/2019Central ExciseMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Ms. Shreya Dahia, Advocate – for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, DR – for the respondent … Continue reading “Devi Iron & Power (P) Ltd. Versus CC, CGST & CE, Raipur”<\/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-16703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16703","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=16703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16703\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Admittedly, Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules requires reversal of credit when inputs in respect of which Cenvat credit has been taken, are removed “as such” from the factory. Admittedly, the Cenvat credit was availed on the coal and the coal was never removed from the factory. In such a scenario, the provisions of Rule 3(5) would not get attracted.
\nOtherwise, also when the coal is issued for washing and screeing and further preparation, it can be safely concluded that the inputs stand issued for utilisation in the manufacture of the final product. After the issuance of the inputs, if waste is generated during further processes, no reversal is required to be done in terms of Rule 3(5). The shale stones have emerged during the course of manufacture of the appel<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. In view of above, it is clarified that the clearance of segregated foreign materials namely iron, steel, rubber, plastic, dust etc. from honey grade brass scrap before feeding in the furnace cannot be treated as removal of “inputs as such” as envisaged under Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The segregated foreign material in such situation, as has been explained above, shall be cleared on payment of Central Excise duty on transaction value as per its appropriate classification and rate of duty determined on merits.”
\nThe issue also stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur – 2016 (336) ELT 541 (Tri.-<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n