Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1614 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - total price of coal tar and coal gas, which comes into existence during the manufacture of coke at the time of their clearance from Tata Steel’s steel plant at Jamshedpur, in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - period from June 2003 to August, 2007 - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the instant case stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. [2014 (5) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT]. Therein the Supreme Court decided a batch of appeals preferred by the Union of India on the issue. One of the decisions which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in this case was the decision of the Bombay High Court in RALLIS INDIA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2008 (12) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY], which had reversed the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in RALLIES INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM [2006 (12) TMI 162 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], which was relied in issuing the show cause notice. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that the entire quantity of coal is completely utilized for production of coke and no part thereof forms a part of the coal gas or coal tar, which inevitably comes into existence as a technological necessity. Here also the appellant cannot use lesser quantity of coal only to produce coke and not produce coal gas or coal tar. Hence, it has to be concluded that the appellant has consumed the entire quantity of coal in the production of coke. Further, merely because coal tar is recovered by a recovery process in the coke plant, from the mixtures of the several by products which arise in the course of production of coke from coal, as and by way of technological necessity, the same cannot and does not become a final product. The provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are inapplicable to the instant case and, consequently, the appellant is not required to make payment of any amount contrary to what has been held in the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|