2018 (11) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Captive consumption of industrial valves - demand of Excise duty - N/N. 67/95-CE - demand on the ground that clearances to Mega Power Project is not provided as an exemption in the proviso to the N/N. 67/95-CE - Held that - The issue involved in this case is no more res integra as the same has already been considered and laid to rest by this very Bench of the CESTAT in the appellant s own case for an earlier period 2018 (10) TMI 1541 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where reliance placed 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of duty on industrial valves captively consumed under Notification No. 67/95-CE.
2. Applicability of exemption under Sl. No. 336 read with Condition No. 41 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 240/2018 (CTA-II) dated 14.05.2018.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of duty on industrial valves captively consumed under Notification No. 67/95-CE
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing industrial valves, availed exemption under Sl. No. 336 read with Condition No. 41 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE for supplying Control Valves to Mega Power Projects. However, a Show Cause Notice was issued seeking duty on industrial valves captively consumed, alleging non-provision of exemption in the proviso to Notification No. 67/95-CE. The lower authorities confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that a previous decision by the CESTAT in their favor for a similar issue supported their case. The Tribunal, after considering various judgments, ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the impugned Order was unsustainable based on the precedent and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

Issue 2: Applicability of exemption under Sl. No. 336 read with Condition No. 41 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE
The issue revolved around the exemption claimed by the appellant under Sl. No. 336 read with Condition No. 41 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE for supplying Control Valves to Mega Power Projects. The contention was whether the exemption provision applied to the specific scenario of the appellant's industrial valves. The appellant relied on a previous favorable decision by the CESTAT for a similar issue to support their claim. The Tribunal, after analyzing the relevant legal provisions and precedents, found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned Order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

Issue 3: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 240/2018 (CTA-II) dated 14.05.2018
The appellant appealed against Order-in-Appeal No. 240/2018 (CTA-II) dated 14.05.2018, which rejected their appeal, upholding the demand of duty by the lower adjudicating authority. During the hearing, the appellant cited a previous decision by the CESTAT in their favor for a similar issue. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and previous judgments, found that the impugned Order was unsustainable based on the precedent and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.