9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 401 - AT - Central ExciseWhether the respondent is entitled to avail the benefit of N/N. 67/95 for use of fuel oil and lean gas produced in the refinery and captively consumed as fuel oil for generation for electricity, used for manufacture of various petroleum products, namely, SKO, LPG and NAPTHA? Held that - The issue involved in this appeal is also no longer res-integra and is settled that if the Cenvat Credit attributable to input in the exempted products are either reversed or paid back the benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/95 dated 16/3/1995 can t be denied in view of a judgment in the case of GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM 2006 (11) TMI 497 - CESTAT, BANGALORE . Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 67/95 for use of 'fuel oil' and 'lean gas produced in the refinery. 2. Whether Cenvat Credit attributable to input in exempted products affects the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/95. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the decision of the Lower Adjudicating Authority. The key issue was the entitlement of the respondent to avail the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 for the use of 'fuel oil' and 'lean gas' in the refinery for various purposes. The Commissioner had previously accepted a similar order in a review dated 10/7/2008 to 28/08/2008. The Tribunal noted that this issue had been settled in previous judgments such as the case of Godawari Sugar Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum and Shakti Sugar vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Salem. 2. The Tribunal further considered the impact of Cenvat Credit attributable to inputs in exempted products on the entitlement to the Notification No. 67/95 benefit. Referring to a case involving another refinery, the Tribunal highlighted that the adjudicating order confirming the demand was remanded back for re-adjudication. In this case, the respondent had not taken any credit related to inputs and had reversed the credit attributable to any input service used in the manufacture of goods, meeting the conditions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules along with Notification No. 67/95. The Tribunal also cited a circular by the CBEC clarifying this issue. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal of the Revenue was without merit and rejected it accordingly.
|
