TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit of the duty paid on said inputs. We find that provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 will be applicable in this case. Rule 6(1) that Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on the quantity of input which is used for the manufacture of exempted goods - have cleared that MS scrap arising out of utilisation of such H.R. Coils was on payment of duty. By any stretch of imagination, scrap cannot be considered as manufactured product at least in the case in hand before us. We also find that the General Manager of the assessee has clearly and categorically stated that the H.R. Coils which were received by them on account of Petron Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. were used only for the purpose of manufacturing of pipes which we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of the excise duty paid on such steel plates by M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. and reversed 8% of the value on the exempted goods i.e. pipes cleared by them to Gujarat Water Infrastructure Ltd. During the course of audit, the audit party raised an objection stating that the appellant is liable to reverse entire amount of Cenvat credit taken on such steel plates as they were aware that the said plates were to be utilised for manufacturing of the pipes for supply to Gujarat Water Infrastructure Ltd. Consequently show cause notice was issued for the differential duty to be paid by the appellant. Appellant contested that show cause notice before the adjudicating authority. Adjudicating authority after following the due process of law confirmed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded by the first appellate authority. 4. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 5. The issue involved in this regard is whether the appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat credit paid on inputs i.e. H.R. Coils received by them for manufacture of pipes to be supplied to Gujarat Water Infrastructure Ltd. by availing exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. as amended from time to time. 6. On the perusal of the records, we find that it is not in dispute that the said H.R. Coils received by the appellant were exclusively used for manufacturing of MS pipes to be sent to Gujarat Water Infrastructure Ltd. by availing exemption Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. as amended. It is also undispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t least in the case in hand before us. We also find that the General Manager of the assessee has clearly and categorically stated that the H.R. Coils which were received by them on account of Petron Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. were used only for the purpose of manufacturing of pipes which were cleared without payment of duty. This being the factual matrix, we find that the appellant cannot claim the benefit of Rule 6(3) by debiting the amount equivalent to 8% of the value of the exempted goods and availed Cenvat credit on the H.R. Coils received by them. On merits we do not find any case in favour of the assessee. 8. The ld. counsel submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Nic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
