9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 No. 1702.21 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the facility of Cenvat Credit. It was observed that the Respondent were manufacturing and clearing a new product 'hydrol' under sub-heading No. 1703.90 availing exemption under Notification No. 06/2002 dtd. 1.3.2002 and clearing the same at nil rate of duty along with their dutiable final product i.e. / Anhydrous Dextrose which were cleared on payment of duty. It was also observed that they were not maintaining any separate accounts of use of inputs for Hydrol as well as not paying 8% am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled 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 ratio of this decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and hence the Adjudicating Authority should have accepted the facts of this case and hence the Adjudicating authority should have accepted the defence of the party and dropped the proceedings, whereas he has confirmed the amount demanded in the notices without even discussing this case law cited by the Appellants. For this reason alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Further, I also find that the department has not investigated the matter properly or understood the issue properly and only on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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-product of the respondents arising out of manufacture of final products. Rule 6 of the Cenvat credit Rules require the assessee to pay a percentage of the value of the exempted final product. 5. We find that apart from Tribunal's decision in the case of Anil Starch Pvt. Ltd., the issue stand decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. vs. Union of India reported as [2009 (233) ELT 301 (Bom)] laying down that there is no liability to pay 8% amount on removal of the by-product/ waste arisen during the course of manufacture of the main product. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
