9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2017 (11) TMI 1248 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that 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 intermediate products are eligible for benefit of N/N. 67/95-CE as amended - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.E/324/2010 - Final Order No.43128/2017 - Dated:- 2-11-2017 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri C. Seethapathy, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan AC (AR) For the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d rejected the appeal. Hence appellants are before this forum. 2. On 02.11.2017 when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri C.Seethapathy submits that the matter is no longer res integra and that it has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the case of Angu Garments Others in Final Order No.42095-42110/2017 dt. 14.9.2017. 3. On behalf of the department, ld. A.R Shri S.Govindarajan fairly concedes to the fact of the said final order. 4. On going through the Tribunal order in Anbu Garments others relied upon supra by the ld. Advocate we do find that the issue in dispute in that matter is on all fours with that in the appeal before us. We find that the Tribunal has gone int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion as to whether in the instant case, the appellants are discharging the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 13. On facts, there is no dispute that appellants have discharged the 'obligation' prescribed in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The respondent have not even disputed the same. 1 4. The case set up by the appellant therefore, was that since the exempted goods ('Cement') is cleared by the appellant who is a manufacturer of (a) 'dutiable final products' ('Clinker'); and (b) 'exempted final products' ('Cement') after discharging the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, clause (vi) of the notification applies. In su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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. 8. The learned Authorised Representative has contested the application of the above decision and contended that the facts will not apply to the present case. We have carefully considered the said claim. We note that the intermediate products involved in both the cases were manufactured and captively consumed by the manufacturer. The final products are exempt on the condition eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
