Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 855 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit - value of goods cleared under N/N. 82/84 to M/s HSL claiming exemption - whether provisions of Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules shall be applicable to the present transactions? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Rule makes it clear that it applies in cases where manufacturer is engaged in manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as the manufacturers another final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to ‘Nil’ rate of duty and the manufacturer takes credit of the specified duty on any inputs, which is used in manufacture of both the above kind of final products - The facts of the present case are that there is one final product of the appellant herein i.e. is dissolved acetylene gas which is cleared by the appellant on payment of requisite excise duty except for M/s HSL being entitled for exemption under Notification No. 82/84 provided it fulfills the procedure mentioned therein. Delhi Bench of this Tribunal also in the case of AUREOLA CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2004 (1) TMI 244 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has held that the goods cleared by the then appellant i.e. spent sulphuric acid was cleared against CT-3 bond to the fertilizer manufacturer. The sulphuric acid was denied to be called as exempted product or the product chargeable to ‘NIL’ rate of duty. Provisions of erstwhile Rule 57CC/Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules were not held applicable. As per provisions of Chapter X Central Excise Rules 1944 and Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, anyone who wants to seek benefit of the provisions has to make an application in a proper form. On being satisfied, the Commissioner may extend the benefit of provision to the said specified industry. Thus the object of both the provisions is clear and the only difference is that Chapter X uses the word “remission” of duty on excisable goods” and Central Excise Rules 2001 used the word ”exemption of duty to excisable goods”. None of these words have been defined in the Central Excise Act. From the definition of exempted goods, it is clear that good may either be exempted from payment of any duty or was not charged to duty. In the present case, admittedly, dissolved acetylene gas as per tariff, is being charged to duty @ 14%. Notification 82/84 apparently does not extend exemption to dissolved acetylene gas as such it does extend the benefit to the specified industry buying this product. Hence the product cannot be held to have been covered under the definition of Rule 2(d) of CENVAT Credit Rules. Accordingly, applicability of Rules 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules is not at all sustainable. Thus, the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that Rule 6(3)(b) is applicable where the manufacturer is manufacturing two separate products one being charged to duty and another being exempt from payment of duty or is charged with ‘NIL’ rate of duty. Apparently, the same is not the fact for the present case. The product in question is one and only one i.e. dissolved acetylene gas which is charged to duty @ 14% - appeal allowed.
|