9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CBEC Manual of Supplementary Instruction, it is clear that Cenvat Credit is admissible on the input contained in by-product/waste refuse. As, the Spent Acid is undoubtedly a by-product therefore, by the virtue of above provision as well as the issue does not remain as res-integra, in the light of the judgments, the demand of 10% of the value of the exemption goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/781 & 954/2011, Appeal No. E/481/2012 - A/85903-85905/16/SMB - Dated:- 5-2-2016 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Agarwal, Adv. With Ms Pushpa Pai Adv For the Respondent : Shri N N Prabhu Desai, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair These appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product and on the clearances of the same under exemption would attract payment of 10% of the value of the said goods in terms of Rule 6(3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, in the adjudication order the demand was confirmed. Revenue as well as assessee challenged the adjudication orders before the Commissioner (Appeals). In one of the case related to Appeal No. E/481/2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee where as the matter relates to Appeal No. E/954/2011 the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee as well as Revenue is before me. 3. Shri Sunil Agarwal Ld. Counsel for the assessee along with Ms. Pushpa Pai Advocate submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also a final product which is like LABSA. Therefore, the same treatment to be given to both the products hence it cannot be said that Spent Acid is by-product, therefore Spent Acid cleared under exemption shall attract payment of 10% in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He placed reliance on the following the judgments: (i) Collector of C.Ex., Ahmedabad Vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. 2002 (146) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) (ii) Southern Petrochemical Inds. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Madras 2002 (148) ELT 1012 (Tri.Chennai) (iii) Collector of C. Ex., Ahmedabad vs. Keti Chemicals 1999 (113) ELT 689 (Tribunal) (iv) Rallies India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2007 (208) ELT 25 (Tri-LB) (v) K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
