9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The 1st Appellate Authority was correct in coming to such a conclusion that the respondent is eligible for the refund of the amount. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1340/2011-DB - Final Order No. A/ 30246 / 2018 - Dated:- 19-2-2018 - Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C. J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Mr. K. Siva Krishna, A.R. for the Appellant Mr. B.V. Kumar, Adv for the Respondent ORDER [ Order Per: M. V. Ravindran ] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 19/2011 dated 11/04/2011 and is filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of the CENVAT credit availed on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a blast furnace during the manufacture of iron and steel. The same is subject to duty under CSH 2618.0000 of the CETA as contended by the appellant and the credit of the same has been taken by the appellant as input credit. The appellant subjects the input slag to a process of grinding and produces Grand Granulated Blast Furnace Slag which is nothing but a refined form of the Blast Furnace Slag /GBS. This process has been held as not amounting to manufacture by the Hon ble CESTAT and credit denied by the Department on this basis. Consequently the Order-in-Original held that as the credit itself was not available as decided by the Commissioner in another case, the accumulation of the credit and its refund would not arise. The Ground Granula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority. It is the case of the Revenue that since the goods ground granulated blast furnace slag is not an item on which excise duty is discharged, CENVAT credit could not have been availed on blast furnace slag and furnace oil. 6. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and the 1st Appellate Authority has come to a correct conclusion as reproduced by us hereinabove. Similar issue came up before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Repro India Ltd Vs UOI [2009(235)ELT 614 (Bom] wherein their Lordships went into detail as to whether the refund can be allowed in respect of CENVAT credit availed on inputs which are used for goods which are exempted or non-dutiable and in paragraph No. 7 held as under: 7. We may also c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the context of these Rules circular dated 8th November, 2001 of the Ministry of Finance was issued. It dealt with the question whether 8% has to be paid on the sale price of exempted goods. Under Rule 6(3)(v) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, to 8% has been increased to 10%. The relevant portion of the Circular dated 8th November, 2001 reads as under :- Further, it is now clearly and specifically mentioned in Rule 57AD(4) that the provisions relating to non-availability of Modvat credit and reversal @ 8% is not applicable in case the exempted goods are cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of Rule 13 . In the new rule 57AD, it has been explicitly provided what was implicity in ers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
