9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishment of the respondent and cannot be subjected to levy or be required to be accounted in term of [Rule] 6(2) or 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Ru1es - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Tax Case No. 1 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2017 - Mr Thottathil B. Ramakrishnan, C.J. And Sharad Kumar Gupta, J. For The Appellant : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri H.S. Patel, Badrinarayan and Yogendra Aldak, Advocates JUDGMENT per: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J. (On Board)]. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is by the Revenue. Under challenge is a decision of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [2017 (350) E.L.T. 260 (Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the reasoning of the Tribunal, also referred pointedly to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 2014 (303) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) relied on by the Learned Tribunal. He also made reference to the different statutory provisions including those contained in Cenvat Credit Rules which have bearing on issues arising for decision. 6. Adverting to the decision of the Commissioner which was subjected to the appeal before the Tribunal, it can be seen that the manufacturing process of the respondent is elaborately described therein. Nonetheless, the Learned Commissioner had not at any point of time concluded that the coke fines themselves is a product intended by the manufacturer to be available as commodity for its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the provisions contained in Rule 6 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and the concept of input and output as emerging out of the definition clause of those Rules, it is evident that the Tribunal had not misdirected itself in arriving at conclusion that coke fines are part of waste resulting out of the manufacturing process in the establishment of the respondent and cannot be subjected to levy or be required to be accounted in term of [Rule] 6(2) or 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Ru1es. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question of law framed in this appeal has to be answered against the Revenue. We do so. Resultantly this appeal fails. 10. In the result, this appeal is dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
