9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation and Revenue neutrality before the Commissioner (Appeals). - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1028/2009 [E/CROSS/79/2009] - Order No. A/10132 / 2015 - Dated:- 11-2-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial),J. For the Appellant : Shri J. Nair, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Vinay Kansara, Advocate ORDER Per : Mr. P.K. Das; The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent were engaged in the manufacture of Chemicals classifiable under Chapter 28 and 29 of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They used common inputs in the manufacture of both, excisable and exempted final products, but the inputs namely Diethyl Carbanyl Chloride we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri. Bang.) held that the said Explanation III to Rule 6 (3) would be applicable retrospectively. It is submitted that the Tribunal, after considering the various decisions, had come to a conclusion that the Explanation III would be effective retrospectively. He further submits that the Tribunal in the case of Ratnamani Metals Tubes Limited vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2012 (285) ELT 274 (Tri. Ahmd.), on the identical issue, held that CENVAT credit is not available on the inputs exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the Tribunal, in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Limited vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2007 (215) ELT 81 (Tri. Bang.) has categorically observed that Explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Explanation III of the Rule 6 (3) is reproduced below:- Explanation III. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the credit shall not be allowed on inputs and input services used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted services. 5. Subsequently, the Tribunal in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Limited vs. CCE, Vishakhapatnam 2011 (265) ELT 358 (Tri. Bang.), held that Explanation-III to Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, clarified is being in the nature of clarification, applicable retrospectively. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- We find that the explanation does not say anything inconsistent with the CENVAT scheme of allowing credit of duty paid on inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As regards the credit involved in balance inputs and inputs contained in the finished goods in stock, we find that these demands are premature. The recovery of input credit involved in these cases shall be regulated in the manner we have indicated, namely, subject to sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of CCR. 6. The Tribunal in the case of Ratnamani Metals Tubes Limited (supra) has held that cenvat credit was not permissible on inputs exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods. So, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the Respondent. The case laws relied upon by the learned Advocate are not on the issue as to whether the Explanation-III of Rule 6 (3) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
