TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products including Naftha. Naftha manufactured by MRPL was cleared through M/s. HPCL to IOCL as inward movement without payment of duty. M/s. IOCL subsequently cleared the goods to M/s. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers for the manufacture of fertilizers falling under Chapter 31 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 by availing the exemption vide Notification No. 8/96, dated 23-7-96. 2. The dispute relates to the clearance made by M/s. MRPL s refinery at Mangalore to M/s. IOCL s terminals at Mangalore by following the warehousing procedure under Chapter 10/Rule 20 of the C.E. Rules, 2002. The Naptha is the final product of the respondent. It is cleared without payment of duty from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein it is envisaged that even if an assessee does not maintain a separate inventory as required, nor does he pay an amount equivalent of 8% of the price of the exempted goods, he would be entitled to reversal of credit availed on a pro rata basis on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. This could happen when the amount of credit availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted product amounts to more than 8% of the price of the exempted goods. On the other hand wherever the amount of Cenvat credit availed on the inputs used in the exempted product is less than 8% amount, because in terms of the instructions contained in the above cited circular, they will opt for actual reversal of the credit. It appeared that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so goods for which exemption is claimed for payment of duty. In this case, the respondents did not claim exemption for payment of duty in respect of the goods cleared to IOCL. The clearances by the respondents is by following the bond procedure. It is only IOCL who is claiming the exemption for supplies made to the Mangalore Chemicals Fertilisers. Consequently Rule 57CC would not be applicable to the respondents. 5. Clearances under bond cannot be considered as clearances of the goods which are exempt from duty. It was stated that the clearances in question have been made following the warehousing procedures. Such clearances under the bond cannot be considered as clearance of goods availing exemption from duty. It is a well settled that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of CCE v. Bombay Dying Manufacturing Co. reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) has again held that reversal credit amounts to non-availment of credit. 6. In the case of MRPL v. CCE Mangalore, this bench has considered this very dispute in Final Order No. 477/2007 wherein the Department had demanded 10% of the value of exempted goods even though the Cenvat credit involved common inputs used in the manufacture of exempted SKO and LPG had been reversed by the assessee and has held that the reversal of credit is acceptable. The learned DR reiterated the grounds of appeal by the Revenue. 7. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In this case the respondent had cleared the naphtha and to IOCL through HPCL by follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
