Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (2) TMI 290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting authority are found to be correct. The findings of impugned order under challenge being contradictory to this effect are held liable to be set aside. The Department has brought nothing on record to show that the iron ore fines can be considered as exempted goods. Apparently and admittedly, there is no Notification of the Revenue granting exemption to this product. Thus, the embargo created in Rule 6 (3) (b) of CCR will not apply for removal of iron ore fines from the appellant s factory. Confirmation of demand by Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore, held to be not proper and justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 52562 of 2018 [SM], Excise Appeal No. 50213 of 2019 [SM] - FINAL ORDER Nos. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellants have discharged their duty liability on their final product i.e. sponge iron and billet, but their returns had no mention of any amount of duty paid on iron ore fines manufactured and removed during the said period. 3. The Department also observed that in manufacture of sponge iron, iron ore lumps of different sizes are firstly subjected to crushing, thereafter iron ore fines are taken out/screened out from the raw-material handling plant. The said taken out /screened out iron ore fines, which are in powder form cannot be used for manufacture of sponge iron. Iron ore lumps and iron ore fines are separately classifiable under Central Excise Tariff depending upon the percentage of iron content therein. The Department still formi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the iron ore fines since were not obtained by undertaking any such process, which may amount to manufacture under Rule 2 (f) of the Central Excise Rules, the fines cannot be called as excisable goods. There is no Notification which has granted any exemption to this Product. Hence, the allegations of the Department are not sustainable. Otherwise also the appellants are registered with the Excise Department for manufacturing of excisable goods i.e. sponge iron and not for the iron ore fines. However, iron ore and coal are their raw-materials. Hence in accordance of provisions of Rule 3 of CCR, on receipt of the iron ore in the factory, the appellants are eligible for the cenvat credit, irrespe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellants can be considered as a separate excisable but exempted commodity. 8. For the purpose, it is foremost important to understand the procedure for the activity of the appellant. Not only from the show cause notice, but from the appellant s submission, the admitted procedure adopted by the appellant in manufacturing his final product i.e. sponge iron is that the appellant procures iron ore as the input for manufacturing sponge iron. The said iron ore lumps of different sizes are first crushed and are then segregated by screening. It is thereafter that requisite sized iron ore /ore lump is feeded in the sponge iron klin. In the aforesaid process of segregation that the iron ore fines are inevitably generated. Thus these fines, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... exempted goods. Apparently and admittedly, there is no Notification of the Revenue granting exemption to this product. Thus, I am of the opinion that embargo created in Rule 6 (3) (b) of CCR will not apply for removal of iron ore fines from the appellant s factory. Confirmation of demand by Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore, held to be not proper and justified. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner, Excise and Service Tax, Raipur vs. Arathi Sponge and Power Ltd.. 2016 (333) ELT 415 supports my finding. The facts of that case are identical as the one as of the present appeals. The Tribunal while relying upon previous decision in the case of Real Ispat Power Ltd. reported as 2013 (287) ELT 494 and also of Ral .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates