9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1541 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of N/N. 67/95-CE dt. 16.06.95 - Supply of industrial valves to Mega Power Projects - demand of Excise duty under N/N. 12/2012-CE dt. 17.03.2012 as amended - Held that - The matter id covered by the decision 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.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.12/2012-CE and Notification No.67/95-CE regarding excise duty on industrial valves supplied to Mega Power Projects. 2. Applicability of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE for intermediate goods. 3. Allegations of suppression of facts and intention to evade duty. 4. Adjudication order confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Analysis: 1. The case involved the manufacturing and supply of industrial valves to Mega Power Projects by the appellants without discharging excise duty under Notification No.12/2012-CE. The department also contested the availability of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE for intermediate goods. The adjudication order confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The appellants argued that they were exempt from paying duty on intermediate goods under Notification No.67/95-CE after complying with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. They cited Tribunal decisions like Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Raipur and Thermo Cables Ltd. vs. CCE Hyderabad to support their position. They emphasized that all clearances to Mega Power Projects were duly intimated to the Central Excise Department, denying any intention to evade duty. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the Tribunal decisions cited by the appellants, noting that the exemption for intermediate goods under Notification No.67/95-CE was correctly claimed. The judgments clarified that the exemption applied when manufacturing both dutiable and exempted final products. The Tribunal, in line with the precedent, found no reason to deviate from the established interpretation and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law. 4. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of compliance with the CENVAT Credit Rules and the specific provisions of the notifications in question. The case underscored the significance of correctly interpreting and applying the legal framework governing excise duty exemptions to avoid disputes and penalties.
|
