9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Department - Hon ble Apex Court held that The basis adopted by the CESTAT that the 'same final product' should be partly dutiable and partly exempt, is neither a requirement of clause (vi) nor a requirement of Rule 6. The issue is no longer res integra having been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court - there is no infirmity in the availment of Notification No.67/1995 on clinker manufactured and captively consumed, while availing Notification No.50/2003 on the cement manufactured by the appellants - the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed. - Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Sudeep Singh Bhangoo, Advocate for the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have switched over to the exemption Notification No.50/2003 and therefore, exemption under Notification No.67/1995 is not applicable to the clinker manufactured and captively consumed by them; another show-cause noticed dated 14.03.2013 seeking to recover Central Excise Duty of Rs.3,12,55,061/- was issued to the appellants; both the show-cause notices were adjudicated vide common order dated 03.09.2014 confirming the demand raised by the show-cause notices, along with interest and penalties, while allowing credit of Rs.26,16,365/- on the 2954.40 MT of clinker. Hence, this appeal. 4. Shri Sudeep Singh Bhangoo, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the proviso (vi) to Notification No. 67/1995, the exemption under Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturer of dutiable and exempted final products after discharging the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, then proviso would not apply. Therefore, the outcome of this case depends upon the answer to the question as to whether in the instant case, the appellants are discharging the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 13 . On facts, there is no dispute that appellants have discharged the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The respondent have not even disputed the same. 14 . The case set up by the appellant therefore, was that since the exempted goods ( Cement ) is cleared by the appellant who is a manufacturer of (a) dutiable final products ( Clinker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rer. The final products may be made out of the same product or out of different products. Clause (vi) does not contemplate that the manufacturer should manufacture only one final product or that if he manufactures only one product that product itself should be both dutiable and exempted. The basis adopted by the CESTAT that the same final product should be partly dutiable and partly exempt, is neither a requirement of clause (vi) nor a requirement of Rule 6. 7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is no longer res integra having been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court. We find that there is no infirmity in the availment of Notification No.67/1995 on clinker manufactured and captively consumed, while av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
