9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.B. in terms of Notification No. 6/02 or 6/06 and therefore, exempted from levy of duty of customs and additional duty as per clause (vii) of Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Following decision of assessee's own previous case [2012 (10) TMI 105 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - Stay granted. - E/453/2011 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2013 - P K Das And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S Muthuvenkataraman, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K S V V Prasad, JC (AR) PER : P K Das The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of Boilers and parts falling under Chapter heading 84 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 2005. Prior to July, 2007, the applicant had two units namely Seamless Steel Tube Plant (SSTP) and High Pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.06. 3. The Ld. AR submits that while passing the earlier stay orders, the Tribunal had not considered that in this case the final product cleared without payment of duty vide Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, which is not covered by the exclusive clauses (i) to (vi) of the Notification No. 67/95-CE (supra). It is submitted that the applicant availed the benefit of Notification No. 6/06-CE and therefore Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules would not apply and accordingly it is beyond the scope of exclusive clauses of Notification No. 67/95-CE. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Brigadier P.S. Gill - 2012 (279) ELT 321 (S.C.). He further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orce in the submissions of the Ld. AR. 5. It is noticed that the Tribunal in the applicant's own case vide Stay Order No. 706/11 dated 08.09.2011, has taken a prima facie view as under:- "Since the final products were manufactured and cleared without discharging the obligation prescribed under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, the department was of the view that the benefit under the captive consumption notification was not available. However, we find that the assessees prima facie were not required to discharge the obligation prescribed under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 as they were covered by clause (vii) of Rule 6 (6), which stipulates that the provisions relating to payment of 10% or 5% as the case may be were not requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
