9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, by following the ratio of the said decisions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20376/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20621/2019 - Dated:- 6-8-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. R. S. Sharma, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the appellant is not the manufacture of zinc doss/cyclone/ash and thus Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 is not applicable. He further submitted that appellant is a manufacturer of pipes/tubes and the inevitable flux zinc/dross/cyclone/ash comes into existence during the manufacture of pipes/tubes. He further submitted that the impugned goods are neither final goods nor exempted good and hence provisions of Rule 6 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs CCE, Raipur, 2016 (344) ELT 905 (Tri. Del.). Ganga Kishan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs CCE, Meerut, 2017 (346) ELT 450 (Tri. Del.). 5. On the other hand, Learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that on identical issue in the appellant s own case for different unit viz. M/s APL Apollo Tubes Ltd., the CESTAT, Chennai has allowed the appeal of the assessee by setting aside the demand. It is pertinent to record the findings in the case of APL Apollo Tubes Ltd which is recorded in Para 5 are reproduced herein below: 5.The issue is whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not apply after amendment in the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rules 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules adding an explanation therein w.e.f. 01 March, 2015. We find that the said grounds of the Revenue was dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Meerut-I V/s M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. vide Final Order No.70916/2019 dated 01 May, 2019 it was observed as under:- 3. I have heard the learned Departmental Representative on behalf of the Revenue. The respondents were manufacturers of sugar and molasses. They were removing Bagasse and Press Mud. The period covered is from 1st March 2015 to31st March 2016. In view of the amendment in explanation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 is not applicable to the waste products which arises during the process of manufacture and is sold for some consideration. Further, I find that in the present case, the appellant is not the manufacturer of zinc waste/dross which comes into existence during the manufacture of Galvanized Steel Pipes/Tubes. Further, I find that the ratio in the case of APL Apollo Tubes Ltd. is squarely applicable in the present case and therefore, by following the ratio of the said decisions, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law therefore I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 06/08/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
