9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the Tax Appeal held that no question of law much less any substantial question of law can be said to be arising. Appeal stands dismissed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) FOR THE APPELLANT(S) NO. 1 GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) FOR THE OPPONENT(S) NO. 1 ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV ) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah for the appellant and learned advocates Mr. Nisarg Desai and Ms. Pravalikha Batthini for Gandhi Law Associates for the opponent. 2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 196 of 2023 vide order dated 31.03.2013 assigned the following reasons while dismissing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of dutiable goods and is inadmissible on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods. Subrule (2) imposes an obligation on the manufacturer who manufactures final products and exempted goods from the common input to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs. Examining the applicability of the aforesaid rules to the facts of the present case, as noted hereinabove, it is not as if more quantity of Hydrochloric Acid is used than that required for manufacturing Gelatin or that by using a smaller amount of Hydrochloric Acid, the production of Mother Liquor could be averted. In the manufacturing process adopted by the assessee, it is not possible to manufacture G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e manufacture of dutiable final products and the quantity of input meant for use in the manufacture of exempted products and take cenvat credit only on that quantity of input which was intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods. In the present case, the assessee has taken cenvat credit only on that quantity of input, which was intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods, therefore, also the question of invoking sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules would not arise. 14. It can be seen from the aforesaid extract that this Court did not rule out the applicability of Rules 6(1) and 6(2) of the CCR on the ground that the exempt product was a by-product, but has done so by observing that the assessee could not have used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. It is not possible to use a lesser quantum of the ethylene glycol to prevent methanol from arising for producing a certain quantity of polyester fibre. Thus, the quantity of ethylene glycol required to produce a certain quantum of polyester fibre is determined by the chemical reaction. It may be mentioned herein that it is not as if the appellants have used excess ethylene glycol wantedly to produce the methanol. It is clear that the appellants are not engaged in the production of methanol but in the production of polyester fibre. That position is undisputed. Therefore, it appears that the Tribunal erred when it held that the appellants were not entitled to a part of the credit of duty since ethylene glycol when it interacts with DMT al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ster fibre. The intention of the Government is evident furthermore, from the trade notice of Pune Collectorate No. 31/81. The Tribunal, therefore, should have taken into consideration the trade notice for interpretation of exemption Notifn. No. 201/79, which was para materia with Rule 56A. Thus, the issue whether the LPG is byproduct or otherwise has become academic and need not required to be decide. In the result this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 5.2 Incidentally, it may be noted that the aforesaid judgment dated 5.5.2022 of the Division Bench of this court was relied on by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in respect of similar claim of refund by the very company in relation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
