9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld. - Decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 1994 & 2834 of 2010- (SM) - ORDER NO. FO/53376-53377/2015-Ex (SM) - Dated:- 27-10-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri BB Sharma and Shri Rajeev Gupta, AR For the Respondent : Shri Rupinder Singh, ad Shri H V Ghirnikar, CA ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : Revenue is in appeal against the impugned orders on the ground that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has fell in error by setting aside the adjudication order demanding duty on the amount of 10% of the value of exempted goods cleared by the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in activity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the goods in question, namely iron ore fine emerges which has been cleared by the respondent without payment of duty as these are exempted goods as per notification No. 4/2006 dated 1.3.2006. and the respondents are not maintaining separate account for dutiable as well as exempted final product, therefore they are liable to pay 10% of the value of goods in question. In these circumstances, impugned orders are required to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Shri Rupinder Singh, submits that provisions of Rule 6(3) are not attracted in the facts of the case as the respondents are not manufacturer of iron ore fine. They are manufacturer of sponge iron and these are by-product which emerges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this case, I find that iron ore fine has emerged as an unavoidable and inevitable waste and compliance with the provisions of Rule 6(2) is impossible. The provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 become applicable only if the manufacturer consciously manufactures dutiable and exempted final product using common Cenvat credit availed inputs and/or input services and does not comply with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It would not apply in a case like this where the exempted final product emerges as an unavoidable waste or by-product and compliance with the provisions of Rule 6(2) is impossible. In the case of Rallis India Ltd. (supra) the Hon ble Bombay High Court held that in such cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
