9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods at intermediate stage, cannot be sold in the market without a protective PVC coating, which is known as outer sheath - Further, no instance has been brought in our knowledge by both the sides whether, the intermediate product is capable of being sold in the market - the intermediate product emerges during the course of manufacturing of their final product is not marketable - decided in favor of appellant. Whether the appellant is entitled for benefit of N/N. 67/95 dated 16.03.1995? - Held that: - the issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of KEI Industries Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 532-CESTAT-New Delhi], where it was held that the appellant is entitled for benefit of N/N. 67/1995 ibid for intermediate product emerging d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand duty by denying benefit of Notification No. 67/95 ibid. The matter was adjudicated and it was held by the ld. Commissioner that as this armoured cable is marketable and as on final product, the appellant is not paying duty, therefore, on the intermediate product they are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 ibid. Hence, is required to pay duty and the duty was demanded alongwith interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. 3. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before us. 4. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is clearing their final goods by availing benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , these goods are marketable as the intermediate product is capable of being used for transmission of power, the same shall be considered as marketable. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. On going through the facts of the case in hand, the following issue emerges:- Issue No.1 a) Whether the goods emerges at intermediate stage are marketable or not /and /whether the appellant is entitled for the benefit under Notification No.67/1995 dated 16.03.1995 in a case where the appellant is availing the benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 or not. 6.1. We have examined the test of marketability. Although the function of the goods emerges at the intermediate stage an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitive bidding. This exemption was subject to the condition that the goods were exempted from basic customs duty and additional duty of customs when imported into India. It is not in dispute that the final products cleared by the assessee without payment of duty during the relevant period satisfied this condition. Against this backdrop, one has to read the provisions of Rule 6(6)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This sub-rule reads as follows :- (6) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) all goods which are exempt from the duties of customs leviabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exed to the Notification. Admittedly, copper wire is one of the inputs and the power cables manufactured and cleared by the assessee are final products covered by the Notification. However, the Department -would like to deny the benefit of this Notification to copper wire manufactured by the assessee and captively consumed in their factory for the manufacture of insulated (power) cables. According to the Revenue, the assessee s claim is hit by the proviso to the Notification, which reads as under : Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise leviable thereon or ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not discharged the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We have already held that the assessee did not have any liability under sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6 inasmuch as these sub-rules were not applicable, by virtue of sub-rule (6), to the assessee who were clearing their exempted final products against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No.6/2006-C.E. ibid. In other words, a conjoint reading of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and clause (vi) under the proviso to Notification No.67/95-C.E. ibid would show that the assessees claim for exemption from payment of duty on copper wire under the Notification was not hit by the opening portion of the proviso to the Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
