9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt which is cleared against the International competitive bidding under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. The issue involved in the present case has already been settled by this Tribunal. Therefore, the issue in hand is no longer res-integra accordingly the impugned orders are set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON'BLE MR. C. L. MAHAR, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Vikas Mehta, CA for the Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The common issue involved in all the appeals is demand of central excise duty on clinker used for captive consumption by availing exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 for manufacturing of cement that was cleared against International competitive bidding by claiming exemption under Sr No. 91 of Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. 2. Shri Vikas Mehta learned consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that the very same issue has been decided by this tribunal by following decision in the appellant s own case. Shree Digvijay Cement Co Ltd- 2018 (11) TMI-300-CESTAT-Ahmedabad Thermo Cables Ltd 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) or additional duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the Schedule to the said Special Importance Act: Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty, other than those goods which are cleared : - i. to a unit in a Special Economic Zone, or ii. to a hundred per cent Export Oriented Undertaking or iii. to a unit in an Electronic Hardware Technology Park, or iv. to a unit in a Software Technology Park, or v under notification No. 108/95-CE, dated the 28th August, 1995, or vi by a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted final products, after discharging the obligation prescribed in rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2001. Table Description of inputs Description of final products (1) (2) All goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), other Than light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil and motor spirit, commonly known as petrol All goods falling under the Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either (i)---------------------------------- (ii)--------------------------------- (iii)-------------------------------- (iv)-------------------------------- (v)-------------------------------- (vi)-------------------------------- (vii) all goods which are exempt from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India and supplied against International Competitive Bidding in terms of Notification No.6/2002-Central Excise dated the 1st March, 2002 or Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise dated the 1st March, 2006, as the case may be. From the above provision, it is clear that the appellant did not have any liability under sub-rule (2) to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products and inputs meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods, nor did the assessee have alternative liability under sub- rule (3) to pay an amount equa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted final products, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of duty on such inputs in terms of the opening paragraph of the Notification. This right is not hit by the opening portion of the proviso to the Notification as the manufacturer is squarely covered by the exception carved out of the proviso vide clause (vi) under the proviso. The Department, it appears, would like to drive the assessee out of the purview of this exception on the ground that the latter had not discharged the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Gredit Rules 2004 Wo have already held that the assessee did not have any liability under sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6 inasmuch as these sub-rules were not applicable, by virtue of sub-rule (6), to the assessee who were clearing their exempted final products against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-CE ibid. In other words, a conjoint reading of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and clause (vi) under the proviso to Notification No. 67/95-CE ibid would show that the assessees claim for exemption from payment of duty on copper wire under the Notification was not hit by the opening port ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India and supplied against International Competitive Bidding in terms of Notification No 6/2002-Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 2002 or Notification No. 6/2006 Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 2006, as the case may be. From the above provision, it is clear that the appellant did not have any liability under sub-rule (2) to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products and inputs meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods, nor did the assessee have alternative liability under sub-rule (3) to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of the exempted goods. This is because their final products were cleared against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E ibid. 5. Against the above backdrop, one has to examine the scope of Notification No 67/95-CE, dated 16-3-1995 (as amended) in so far as the present case is concerned. The opening paragraph of this Notification exempts from payment of CE duty any inputs manufactured in a factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the latter had not discharged the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We have already held that the assessee did not have any liability under sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6 inasmuch as these sub-rules were not applicable, by virtue of sub-rule (6), to the assessee who were clearing their exempted final products against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. ibid. In other words, a conjoint reading of sub-rule (6) of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and clause (vi) under the proviso to Notification No. 67/95-C.E. ibid would show that the assessees claim for exemption from payment of duty on copper wire under the Notification was not hit by the opening portion of the proviso to the Notification. 7. In the result, the assessee was not liable to pay CE duty on copper wire manufactured and captively used in the manufacture of insulated (power) cables in the factory during the material period. The impugned demands and the connected penalties are, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly 9. As facts of the case are not disputed that the appellant is manufacturing linal products an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
