TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/1163/2008 - A/175/2010-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 31-3-2010 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) S/Shri Vinay Sejpal, Advocate and Sunil Agnihotri, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri H.B. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order confirmed the demand of Rs. 5,21,916/- and equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of Sulphuric Acid the said product is excisable and chargeable to duty at the rate of 16% BED. The said products are regularly supplied for various industrial uses and are cleared on payment of duty under cover of invoice as per Rule 8 read with Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.). Aggrieved from the same the appellant is before me. 4. Shri V.S. Sejpal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable to the facts of their case as they are not manufacturing two separate products namely dutiable goods and exempted goods to attract the provisions of Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004. He further submits that their supplied made to fertilizer manufacturers under bond/against CT-3 Certificate cannot be considered as exempted goods. To support his contention he placed reliance on various decisions as under : (1) CCE, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. - 2007 (215) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Rule 6". In the case of Kesoram Rayon v. CCE, Kolkata-IV reported in 2007 (83) RLT 397 (CESTAT-Kol.) wherein the appellants took credit of input for manufacture of Sulphuric Acid, part of which was supplied under Chapter X procedure without payment of duty and the appellant did not maintain separate account and hence the department has demanded 8% of the value of sulphuric Acid is not sustainable and credit on inputs is not tenable in respect of the sulphuric acid supplied duty free under Chapter X Procedure. In the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Guljag Industries Limited reported in 2008 (86) RLT 133 (CESTAT-Del.) again it was held that goods removed wherein it was held that the Rule 57CC of the said erstwhile Rules is not applicable in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dutiable product it is not a exempted product and the same was cleared to the manufacture of fertilizers under CT-3 Certificate/bond hence the facts of the Ballarpur Industries case are not applicable to this case, But the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in that case is squarely applicable to this case also. Further, I find that the ratio of the case of Aureola Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in 2004 (175) E.L.T. 148 (Tri. - Del.) is squarely applicable to this case wherein it was held that the appellants were clearing the Spent Sulphuric Acid under Chapter X Procedure to various manufacturers of fertilizers against CT-2 Certificates. The obligation is on the receiver of such goods to use the same in a specified industrial process. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
