TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ja Cements Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 1413 - SUPREME COURT]. It was held in the case that There may be different final products manufactured by the same manufacturer. The final products may be made out of the same product or out of different products. Clause (vi) does not contemplate that the manufacturer should manufacture only ‘one final product’ or that if he manufactures only one product that product itself should be both dutiable and exempted. The basis adopted by the CESTAT that the ‘same final product’ should be partly dutiable and partly exempt, is neither a requirement of clause (vi) nor a requirement of Rule 6. The exemption available to intermediate products in the present case cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brics. The original authority held against the appellants. On appeal, the original orders were affirmed. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us. 4. The learned counsel appearing for all the appellants submitted that the facts of the present cases were admitted and there is no dispute on this. The tax liability of the intermediate products captively consumed in the manufacture of final product, which are exempted has been the subject-matter of decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 2015 (326) E. L. T. 13 (SC.) . He submitted that the issue disputed is no more sustainable and the matter stands resolved in their favour as per the ratio' laid do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra) . The Supreme Court observed as under:- 12 . In the present case, we find that the Clinker is used as input for production of Cement and Cement is exempted from the excise duty. Therefore, by virtue of this proviso insofar as Clinker is concerned, Exemption Notification would not apply. However, the matter does not end here inasmuch as the proviso itself is not applicable under certain circumstances as mentioned therein, viz., in respect of those goods which are cleared under six circumstances. We are concerned here with clause (vi) which states that if goods are cleared by a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted final products after discharging the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide that the same final product should be partly dutiable and partly exempted. On the contrary, this Rule relates to taking of Cenvat credit in respect of inputs . 16. This Rule is not applicable as such in its totality since taking of Cenvat credit is not in issue in these cases. On the other hand, relevance of this Rule is only to the extent of obligation contained in the said Rule which is to be discharged. A plain reading of clause (vi) of the notification would show that it only contemplates a situation where a manufacturer manufactures both dutiable as well as exempt final products . There may be different final products manufactured by the same manufacturer. The final products may be made out of the same product or out of di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id proviso to the notification as discussed in the decision of the apex court in M/s. Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal decided the applicability to Notification No.67/1995-CE to the goods not covered under Notification No.8/2003-CE, being intermediate products. Though, the exemption was held not available, the issue regarding the proviso and more specifically the implication of clause (vi) of the provisio under Notification No.67/1995 was not discussed to lay down any ratio. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the said provisio and laid down the legal position in M/s. Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra). 10. On careful consideration of the discussion as above, we note that the exemption available to intermediate products in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|