9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1071 - AT - Central ExciseIron ore fines cleared without payment of duty - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) took note of various decisions of the Tribunal and held that emergence of iron ore fines cannot be held to be a manufacturing activity and the fact that such iron ore fines were cleared without payment of duty would not call upon the assessee to pay 10% of the value of the same in terms of Rule 6. See Rallies India Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2008 (12) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY). In as much as the issue stands covered we find no reason to interfere the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue s appeal is accordingly rejected.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal due to administrative difficulty. 2. Liability to pay duty on exempted products. 3. Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal due to administrative difficulty The judgment addresses the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal, attributing it to administrative difficulty arising from the different locations of two Commissionerates. The Tribunal, understanding the situation, condones the delay and allows the COD application. Issue 2: Liability to pay duty on exempted products The respondent, engaged in manufacturing sponge iron, clears iron ore fines without payment of duty, leading to a dispute with the Revenue. The Revenue contends that when both dutiable and exempted final products are manufactured and cleared, the respondent is liable to pay 10% of the value of the exempted products under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) finds in favor of the respondent, citing precedents from the Tribunal and the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal concurs with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the emergence of iron ore fines does not constitute a manufacturing activity, and hence, the respondent is not obligated to pay the 10% duty on the value of the fines. Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules The Commissioner (Appeals) bases the decision on the Tribunal's previous rulings and the Bombay High Court's judgment, which were not challenged by the Revenue in their appeal. The Tribunal notes that the Revenue failed to provide grounds as to why the prior decisions should not apply and merely reiterated their original stance. Consequently, as the issue is deemed covered by existing precedents, the Tribunal rejects the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). This judgment clarifies the Tribunal's stance on the delay in filing appeals, the liability to pay duty on exempted products, and the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, providing a detailed analysis of each issue and the rationale behind the final decision.
|
