9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the adjudicating authority has committed a legal error while denying the benefit of reduced CVD on imported coal while placing reliance upon the Excise notification for manufacture of coal. Order is therefore, held not sustainable and accordingly, is hereby set aside. The demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri R.Parthasarathy, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) ORDER ORDER : Per Ms. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. 1. Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalties. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Consultant Shri. Parthasarathy appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant imported steam coal for use in the generation of electricity which in turn was used in relation to the manufacture of final product namely, cement. With effect from 1/3/2011, the steam coal was subjected to Central Excise duty at 5% adv. vide Notification 2/2011 CE dated 1/3/2011. However, concessional rate of 1% adv. (that is excise duty) was available for steam coal as per notification 1/2011 CE dated 1/3/2011 (serial no.88) subject to the condition that such concessional rate of duty shall not apply to goods in respect of which Central Excise duty on inputs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22-382-ELT-366-TRI-Kolkatta) Commr. Of CGST CEX Bolpur Vs Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. (2022-382-ELT-329-(CAL). 6. The Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. The Ld. AR Shri. Harendra Singh Paul appeared and argued for the department. The Ld. AR supported the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The issue is whether the appellant is eligible to take the CENVAT Credit of 2% CVD paid on imported steam coal vide notification 12/2012 Cus. dated 17/3/2012. The issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Tamilnadu News Print and Papers Ltd. Vs. CGST and CE, Trichy 2021 (10 TMI 13 CESTAT, Chennai). The relevant part of the decision reads as under: 10. From the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich denies availment of Cenvat credit on imports of coal manufactured by the supplier of coal, as has been taken the basis in the order-in-original, shall therefore be applicable for domestically manufactured goods only and not on the imported coal. Perusal of Excise Notification No. 67 further reveals that no such condition is applicable in case of import of coal. 8. The narrow compass of the adjudication, therefore, remains as to whether under Customs notification against S. No. 67 i.e., while importing the coal, the appellants were entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on the amount of CVD paid. The Cenvat credit is applicable as per Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, clause 7 thereof entitles the appellants to avail t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
