9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 670 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of CENVAT Credit alongwith interest and penalties - iron fines emerging, during the process of manufacture of sponge iron ore - iron ore fines are not excisable and no excise duty is paid - failure to maintain separate records - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra and in the respondent s own case M/S GHANKUN STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR. 2019 (5) TMI 1998 - CESTAT NEW DELHI it has been held by this Tribunal that the Respondent need not deposit the amount equal to 6% under Rule 6(3) of the CCR. The amendment made by way of explanation to Rule 6 makes no difference because the question is not if the goods are non-excisable or excisable but exempted but whether the iron ore fines are manufactured or not and this Tribunal has consistently held that the iron ore fines are not manufactured but only emerge during the process of manufacture of sponge iron. Accordingly, there are no force in the appeal by the Revenue. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
Issues involved: Challenge to the Commissioner (Appeal) order setting aside demand for payment under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for not maintaining separate records for iron ore fines.
Summary: The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Commissioner (Appeal) order setting aside the demand for payment under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The case revolved around whether the respondent was required to deposit an amount equal to 6% of the value of iron ore fines under Rule 6(3) of the CCR. The Revenue contended that the respondent failed to maintain separate records for the manufacture of sponge iron and iron ore fines, thus necessitating the payment. On the other hand, the respondent argued that iron ore fines were not manufactured but emerged as a by-product during the manufacture of sponge iron, hence Rule 6 did not apply. The Tribunal, considering previous decisions, held that the respondent was not required to deposit the amount under Rule 6(3) as iron ore fines were not manufactured goods. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeal). The Revenue argued that the respondent should pay 6% of the value of iron ore fines under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules due to the lack of separate records for the manufacture of sponge iron and iron ore fines. The respondent contended that iron ore fines were not manufactured goods but emerged as a residue during the production of sponge iron, hence Rule 6 was not applicable. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal held that the respondent was not obligated to make the payment under Rule 6(3) as the iron ore fines were not considered manufactured goods. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal). The Tribunal deliberated on whether the respondent was liable to pay 6% of the value of iron ore fines under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules for not maintaining separate records. The Revenue argued that since the respondent did not keep separate records, the payment was necessary. However, the respondent contended that as iron ore fines were not manufactured but a by-product of sponge iron production, Rule 6 did not apply. Citing previous rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not required to make the payment under Rule 6(3) as the iron ore fines were not classified as manufactured goods. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal).
|
