9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are not attracted – Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. 1241 of 2006-EX[DB] - ORDER NO. FO/ 57063 /2013-Ex(Br) - Dated:- 9-7-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, AR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Manish Saharan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri Sanjay Jain, learned AR appearing for the Revenue. 2. M/s. Tirupati Starch and Chemicals Ltd., Pithampur (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) are engaged in the manufacture of Dextrose falling under sub-heading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral submissions made by the Appellants, I find the dispute in the present appeal relates to the submissions made by the Appellants, I find the dispute in the present appeal relates to the propriety of demand of an amount equal to 8% of the price of Hydrol arising as a by-product and cleared under an exemption notification. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Appellants have cited two case laws in their defence including the one which is of M/s. Anil Starch Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE -1990 (49) ELT 525 (T) wherein the Tribunal has held that Hydrol being a by-product is entitled to the benefit under Rule 57D and, therefore, the credit taken by the appellant does not require any curtailment and accordingly, the demand was set aside. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drol) cleared by them. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in holding that the amount of Rs.7,33,488/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Eight only) confirmed vide the impugned order is not sustainable. Therefore, the same is set aside. The penalty imposed on the Appellants to the extent of the same amount is also set aside. Consequently, there cannot be any interest liability on the Appellants in terms of Section 11AA/AB of the Act. 4. Revenue in their memo of appeal have contended that Rule 57D in the context of which the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Anil Starch Pvt. Ltd. was delivered, was not on the statute book and there is no provisions in the Cenvat credit Rules, 2002 to exempt any by-p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
